Georgia Judge Rules Against Plaintiffs:
Attorney Mark Hatfield "taking it up on appeal"
Attorney Mark Hatfield "taking it up on appeal"
Article II Super PAC Email
Greetings,
As you know we were expecting word out of Georgia today and we got it. Late this afternoon Judge Malihi issued his ruling against all four Plaintiffs.
We caught up with Swensson/Powell's counsel, Mark Hatfield, late this afternoon to get his initial take on the ruling. Here is what he stated “obviously we are disappointed w/the decision, but there are a couple of items in the ruling that we are looking at. First, the Judge never made any ruling on who has the burden of proof even though he indicated in chambers prior to the hearing that making the determination of the burden of proof laid with Defendant Obama." He went onto state "the Judge has a record of placing the burden on the candidate, but didn't do so in this case." Another point Hatfield made was the “Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in Arkeny elevates the Indiana case above the Constitution" while also noting the Judge ignored the Minor court in Minor v Happersett, a ruling that clearly defined natural born Citizen, established precedent. When asked about next steps Hatfield stated "we are going full bore and taking it up on appeal”.
Click this link to read Judge Malihi's ruling - http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html
We will be following this in detail and will keep you abreast of activities as they unfold.
Sincerely,
Helen Tansey
Director
Article II Super PAC
director@Art2SuperPAC
804.840.1449
Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.
Please visit www.Article2LegalDefenseFund.com and consider making a secure donation to help cover legal costs associated with this GA ballot challenge.
ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
98 comments:
I, for one, am NOT going to be insulting to the judge for his decision, though the evidence of his ineligibility is clear to me.
AT LEAST the judge allowed the evidence to be presented in his court, which is a far cry from every other court since I FIRST became aware of his ineligibility in 2008!
I WILL compare this to 'dialing in' a combination lock - if you don't get it right the first time, KEEP ON DIALING, until the lock opens!!!
@wisdomisbliss:
You may not be insulting the Judge but the Judge certainly insulted all of the expert witnesses.
If he didn't like the document experts, why didn't he obtain his own experts? He made a ruling on what he considered inadequate witness testimony which is a reason for overturning his ruling. This judge is not wise but foolish. He is merely an Obot.
Obstructing Justice Statutes
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/obstructing_justice_statutes.html
Yes, appeal by all means, but meanwhile primary voting continues, and no Republican candidate seems to mention eligibility as an issue or potential issue or matter of any concern whatsoever.
Santorum and Romney are both subject to eligibility questions, so they are sure to keep mum. If Marco Rubio runs for VP, Article II is well and truly dead. America belongs to whoever is strong enough to take her, as in rape.
wisdomisbliss said...
"KEEP ON DIALING, until the lock opens!!!"
Most people refer to that as "Grabbing at straws".
I challenge everyone to send a donation into Art2SuperPac, to help with the costs of moving forward with the appeal. I will be donating this evening.
the law is scattered to the winds
how can a defendant not show up, present no evidence, nor refute opposition's evidence
and still win?
the law is gone, judicial is nothing
just air
You blew it, Orly!…..Stay the hell out of the next courtroom and let real attorneys who are actually on the constitution's side handle this from now on
Obama is not a Constitutional president. Chavez in Venezuela and Cristina Fernandez in Argentina are Constitutional presidents. Justice system in Venezuela and Argentina are under the executive control and judges are totally in their favor. Chavez is a communist and Cristina was a former montonera (terrorist group). We do not have a Republic anymore, when our judges are like those in South America.
All I can say, after reading the court's decision, is 'time will tell the tale'.
Thanks, moderator, for reviewing what must be a flood of posts on this one...
@Anonymous
"why didn't he obtain his own experts"
Judges don't do investigations. Orly was suppost to bring in real experts. She didn't do that.
I suspect this ruling was not written by judge Milihi. When you read his denial of motion to quash and then this ruling there seems to be contradictions.
I can't put my fingers on it right this minute but basically he pointed out in his denial that you can't construct an opinion from what's not written. You must take case law for exactly what it says. However, in his final ruling he makes several constructed opinions based on assumptions....completely contrary to what he wrote several days earlier. I swear this ain't the same person
"Judge ignored the Minor court in Minor v Happersett"
No, he cited Minor, he just didn't cite it as binding precedent for NBC. He cited it in the same way that other legal experts have cited it, 'the Constitution does not define NBC'.
The judge’s decision sounds contrived. In reading the decision, the judge didn’t actually rule on the merits of the NBC argument. Instead, the judge completely IGNORED (He did not even address or counter them; the judge essentially said that the NBC arguments didn’t even exist in the record.) all the legal arguments in the record and deferred to the state case of Ankeny Vs. Indiana. Clearly, the judge did not address the NBC argument.
where are those whiny f**ks who moan and bitch about how hard working and honorable orly is now?
just stfu!
She's a subverter, a clown, meant to pull the rug and be a comedian.
Re: "When asked about next steps Hatfield stated "we are going full bore and taking it up on appeal.”
GOOD, LOOKING FORWARD TO THE APPEAL! MALIHI IS A SCUMBAG!
the next a judge offers you a fork in the road
TAKE IT
WELL OBAMA ISNT MY PRESIDENT AND THERE FOR I DO NOT TAKE ORDERS FROM HIM I WILL OBEY THE Constitution AS IT IS.........I JUST HOPE THAT GOD DOES NOT PUNISH US ANYMORE AND THAT HE WILL SEE THAT OBAMA GOES OUT................GOD BLESS AMERICA.....PRAYERS ALWAYS GOING OUT
GUESS I PUT TO MUCH HOPE IN THE JUDGE. SOMEONE HAD TO GET TO HIM, LIKE THE COMMMENT ABOVE, NO SHOW, NO PAPERS, NO NOTHING AND OBAMA WINS AGAIN..MAY OBAMA ROT IN HELL, ''WE THE PEOPLE'' TRY TO GET ANSWERS AND WE GET $HIT ON.
The CIA or some shadow group must have some kind of a way to beam thought patterns into these judges brains to get them to rule as they do. I knew something would go wrong with this case when last week, the attorneys did not just let the judge issue the default ruling against OBama as the judge offered to do. Instead the attorneys wanted to get their evidence into the court record. That was a HUGE mistake. All it did is give the criminals time to "get to" the judge. They should have taken the default judgement and ran with it. This judge's flip flop is making it obvious that something is going on behind the scenes to get to these judges.
To be sure - this [so-called] "judge" is disgusting! He is a gutless coward!
Suffice to say - we know now, who crawled up this unworthy judge's ass. Or, maybe he's been up Obama's all along.
The judge was paid off by Obummer. Everyone knows that (smh)
Sickened and disgusted by it ALL. Obviously there's no LEGAL way to get him out of office. Well I guess we know what that means? Time to take it to the streets....of DC. I just hoped we could avert that Revolution for awhile longer but that's obviously wrong. I'll be checking out the state militias to see what they're saying now. The time is near, get prepared.
Here is the BEST EXHIBIT TO ATTACH TO YOUR APPEAL!
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/02/03/controversial-artist-depicts-obama-trampling-the-constitution/
It really seems like this was a set-up. I mean has anyone ever heard of a defendant winning a case after ignoring a subpoena and refusing to show up for the hearing??? Has anyone here ever defied and ignored a Court Subpoena? That person would at the very least LOSE THEIR CASE to the plaintiff by DEFAULT JUDGEMENT. How can it be ethical or legal for a court to find in favor of a DEFENDANT who refuses to appear and answer his or her accuser, after all, that’s why we have court’s and attorney’s. Maybe I'm missing something here, but as a matter of law it's beyond imagination how Malili made this decision. Seems like the Contempt would out- way any and all other evidence presented by the Plaintiff’s, the default would have initiated at the point when the judge hit the gavel and opened court and Obama or his representative were not PRESENT in the Courtroom. OBAMA WAS OFICIALLY IN CONTEMPT AT THAT POINT
It's just off the reservation crazy for a defendant to win his case without showing up or entering a single ARGUMENT. My question is, was the Judge simultaneously acting as Obama’s defense counsel as well? Certainly seems like a fishy conflict of interest for a Judge to write and enter a defense and then make an Official ruling in the very case you are defending? There is no other way to look at this. Because neither Obama or his Counsel ever even entered a single piece of evidence to answer Plaintiff’s case, or even appear before the court to respond at all, it sure does appear that Judge Malihi was in-fact acting as defense counsel while simultaneously acting as Administrative Judge in this case.
“When The People Fear Their Government It’s Called Tyranny, When The Government Fears The People It’s Called Liberty”
Thomas Jefferson
@Anonymous
"You may not be insulting the Judge but the Judge certainly insulted all of the expert witnesses.
If he didn't like the document experts, why didn't he obtain his own experts?"
If either side wishes to present an expert witness, their credentials and expertise must be demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction. It is NOT incumbent upon the Court to provide its own expert witnesses. This is true in any proceeding, not just this particular case. I have been a software engineer for 20 years, but I doubt that my credentials would pass muster as an "expert witness" in a court of law.
It is the requirement of counsel to prove the competence/expertise of any 'expert witnesses' they choose to bring before the Court.
From the decision: "s. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the
witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts.
See Stephens v. State, 219 Ga. App. 881 (1996) (the unqualified testimony of the witness was not competent evidence). For example, two of Plaintiffs' witnesses testified that Mr. Obama's birth certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert
in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or
fraud investigations in general."
Ms. Taitz didn't establish the 'expert credentials' of any of these witnesses; thus, their testimony was not legally competent.
That isn't a point of favoritism or bias; it's how the law works.
Good luck with your appeal.
I'm sure the judge was threatened just like all the others were. there is no rule of law and there hasn't been for 3 years!
Did Obama ever cite the Indiana case. Where the hell did the judge get that. Did the attorneys a chance to even address its weak significance. Did he even mention Minor v Happersett. What a waste of time presenting a case to a judge who is going to decide a case not consistent with the evidence presented but despite of the evidence presented while ignoring the burden of proof and the defendants disdain for the process. That at your peril comment made to Obama was a complete joke. Sometimes I think the truth on all this wont be addressed for many years I just hope its not to late for our country. The natural born citizen definition is important but those three words wont be mentioned by any of the national media. Why. Perhaps we are wrong but just raising this subject is not permitted. Orwellian times.
Did Obama ever cite the Indiana case. Where the hell did the judge get that. Did the attorneys a chance to even address its weak significance. Did he even mention Minor v Happersett. What a waste of time presenting a case to a judge who is going to decide a case not consistent with the evidence presented but despite of the evidence presented while ignoring the burden of proof and the defendants disdain for the process. That at your peril comment made to Obama was a complete joke. Sometimes I think the truth on all this wont be addressed for many years I just hope its not to late for our country. The natural born citizen definition is important but those three words wont be mentioned by any of the national media. Why. Perhaps we are wrong but just raising this subject is not permitted. Orwellian times.
Did Obama ever cite the Indiana case. Where the hell did the judge get that. Did the attorneys a chance to even address its weak significance. Did he even mention Minor v Happersett. What a waste of time presenting a case to a judge who is going to decide a case not consistent with the evidence presented but despite of the evidence presented while ignoring the burden of proof and the defendants disdain for the process. That at your peril comment made to Obama was a complete joke. Sometimes I think the truth on all this wont be addressed for many years I just hope its not to late for our country. The natural born citizen definition is important but those three words wont be mentioned by any of the national media. Why. Perhaps we are wrong but just raising this subject is not permitted. Orwellian times.
the attempts to change the constitutions art2 sec1 what were they trying to change? ether they knew exactly what its meaning was and wanted to change it to what? it should be spelled out in those bills.
I wonder if President Obama gets another Supreme Court selection will he pick judge Mahili?
After March 6th will the appeal be moot?
In response to the argument that Orly Taitz didn't properly identify or characterize her expert witnesses, I would normally agree, however, if you watched the video of the hearing you would see that the Judge said it was "Abbreviated" and kept continually pushing Orly to "Move On, Move On, Who's You're Next Witness?" He was very intent on not allowing any of the Attorney's to get to far into the details of their case. I'm sure if they had been given the time, Orly would have very thoroughly quizzed the experts on the ability. And in any case, the default occurred at 9:30 when the judge started the hearing, Obama nor his Counsel showed up, so the default happened before and aside from any witnesses appearing. It was over the minute it started, so none of those witnesses should even play into it. This was a flat kooky decision and it certainly seems suspicious.
ALL---- It is Over; Go read the Epic novel "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn --- The story of life under the ruthless USSR / KGB regimes in the mid 1900's. It is not "coming our way" -- it is HERE !".
PS -- where did the EXCELLENT journalist (Sharon R. ) from the extinct Post & Email news go? Take a job at Walmart ?? Where is she ?? Where is Sharon?
Lazer73 is absolutely correct, Obama nor his Attorney ever entered anything into the case about the Indiana case. In order for that to have been entered, somebody had to seek that information and enter it as evidence. So it appears that the above entry stating that Judge Malili was acting as the defense counsel while also acting as Judge was also correct. The Judge searched for and entered evidence to aid in Obama's defense, which means he was DEFENDING OBAMA while also officiating his Court Hearing.
isnt the secretary of state to make the final decision, using the malihi opinion as only a guide.
@anonymous 06:34 "It really seems like this was a set-up. I mean has anyone ever heard of a defendant winning a case after ignoring a subpoena and refusing to show up for the hearing??? Has anyone here ever defied and ignored a Court Subpoena? That person would at the very least LOSE THEIR CASE to the plaintiff by DEFAULT JUDGEMENT."
Hello? Judge Malihi OFFERED the plaintiffs a default judgment. If they'd taken it, Malihi was obliged to take Obama off the GA ballot.
The PLAINTIFFS demanded that their arguments be read into the record. As such, the judge was OBLIGATED to evaluate their arguments according to the LAW.
If they'd kept their yaps shut, you people would be cheering Malihi's bravery and patriotism today. But no. They had to slather him with birferism.
And this is the result.
@Anonymous
"The Judge searched for and entered evidence to aid in Obama's defense"
No, the judge searched for legal rulings that corresponded to the circumstances of the case. He than applied those previous rulings to the current set of facts, and made a ruling.
@Ed K
Ed K said...[Reply]
===================
correct
As to the judge's statement that the witnesses were not properly qualified as experts, that is the plaintiff's attorney's fault. She should have said to his honor for each witness that she would like to introduce to the record information on the education, experience, training, vocations, licenses, and background on each witness in order for the court to recognize them as an "Expert" in their respective field and so recognized by the court. Orly did not follow standard courtroom procedures to properly qualify each witness as an Expert in their field. She should have. And then at some point in presenting their quals as experts she should have said to the judge ... unless there are any objections I would like this witness admitted by this court as an expert in the field of ..... And of course there was no one there from the defense side to object so the court would have likely approved her request. At that point any testimony would have been on the record as testimony from a court approved and recognized "expert". Orly failed to do that. She even failed to ask some of the witnesses to state their name in full upon taking the stand. The disqualification of the testimony of the witnesses called is solely in the lap of Orly Taitz for not knowing how to get a witness qualified as an expert in a court of law.
@Anonymous
Orly had requested two hours for her witnesses/evidence. The judge restricted her to one hour and she didn't even have that since he continually rushed her actually causing her to seem hostile to her own witnesses..."you aren't listening" and "we have limited time". All of that scenario was a set up to the judge's advantage to merely show that he was being fair to those who should have been given even more time since the no shows gave them that privilege. And the judge accepted nothing? The witnesses weren't convincing?? So the SSA and the govt's own system for verifying citizenship themselves weren't convincing to his majesty? Just what would have been "convincing" to this man with an obvious ignorance of the entire background here?
@AnonymousNot just the expert witness's, he insulted America. What evidence did Obama present? Even insufficient is better than none.
@Anonymous
So all of the witnesses' prior "expert witness" experience in various courts as stated was not established by Orly as you state? Where were you when all of that experience was testified to??
Hopefully this terribly flawed decision will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. The judge has either made himself an embarrassing example of an intellectual lightweight or, worse, a dishonest one covering the SOB usurper's ass.
The judge, unfortunately, may be right. For expert testimony to be considered, you have to get the witnesses verified. If the attorneys didn't do that, the judge can ignore their testimony.
IF there is another case, that mistake certainly won't be made again.
The left will announce this as proof that O is a natural born citizen, when all this is is proof that the judge did not consider the evidence based on yet another technicality.
I certainly hope this is not binding precedent anywhere, under some rubrick of full faith and credit, stare decisis, or some other such rule of law.
How can we protect our system from Soror-et-al buy-off/threats to keep the integrity?
I guess a lot of you don't remember that the leftists spent 8 years trying to get Bush removed through the courts. They claimed he stole two elections, and sought remedy. They failed miserably of course, just like this cause is failed. They finally woke up and sought a political answer. Which is what you now need to do before it's too late.
Brian Kemp has a degree in Agriculture. He is not a lawyer.
It is a bit obvious that Orly is making a mess of things.
But at least she is up there doing her darnest.
There are what - 100,000 lawyers in the US. A huge number anyway.
Where are they?
Where are all the constitutionalists?
The judgement is a disgrace But so is the refusal of the above two groups to do B all about whats going on.
The US is now completely rotten and corrupt.
It has no regard for international law - murdering and plundering across the planet.
It has no respect for its own people and can now commit acts of murder and torture against them with the support of both legislative houses.
Even your so called constitutional experts have no regard for your constitution.
You are a rabid animal.
Its about time someone put you down to save the rest of the world.
I cannot think of a single saving grace.
for all its imperfections ,I always considered the American judicial system to be mostly a sound and rational means of rendering justice based on the rule of law regardless of money ,power and influence . "blind justice " that didnt see the trappings of might or wealth but only the constitution and the law ....
the experience of the last few years in regards to this "eligibilty " issue ,has removed the scales from my eyes ...indeed ,I now understand the meaning of the phrase " contempt of court " ..yep ,I got it alright ,in full measure .
-You blew it, Orly!…..Stay the hell out of the next courtroom and let real attorneys who are actually on the constitution's side handle this from now on
"Real attorneys" Hatfield..? Irion..?
-where are those whiny f**ks who moan and bitch about how hard working and honorable orly is now?
Well, I'm right here. And I say you are an Ingrate Scumbag for cutting down Orly. When you find someone better let us know. In almost 4 yrs. now we havent been able to. (Think it's got something to do with BALLS)
EVERYONE IS FREE TO FILE THEIR OWN CASE ANYTIME THEY WANT TO. You just gotta have the BALLS to do it..! Which is why ALL THAT CUT DOWN ORLY ARE SCUMM. You don't have the balls to PICK UP THE FLAG, but you have the balls to cut down the ONE that does. YOU, JSTFU.
This is bound to fail because we are no longer a republic. There is no respect for the rule of law. We're being ruled by an oligarchy with lots of window dressing to make it appear as a free country. My apologies to all the conspiracy theorists out there, you were right. If you believe in God, pray and if you don't, I suggest you get religion quickly! I am not suggesting to stop and go to war, no we must exhaust every avenue at our disposal but the hard reality is inescapable, there are forces in this country seeking to destroy our constitutional government. I love this country and what it stood for but now the transformation is about to complete we must resist with all our might and soul. In the end, I see civil war. There is no escaping this eventuality, so prepare and get ready. Above all get way closer to God and live a righteous life because only the righteous will win in the end.
With the upmost sincerity, God bless you all and God Bless America.
It was no surprise everyone is bashing Orly and everyone is claiming the Judge didn’t had evidence to make the claim Obama was born in the USA.
All the cases but Orly's case did not question Obama’s long form BC, they took Obama’s fake BC as fact to prove he only had one US citizen parent.
If the other cases had not enter Obama’s BC as evidence it might not have been use as fact as proving Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
I don’t blame Orly but the Judge.
This is what happened in Georgia:
Judge Malihi says:
“The credibility of witnesses is within the sole discretion of the trier of fact. In non-jury cases, that discretion lies with the Judge.”
Malihi said that Taitz didn’t properly qualify her witnesses as “experts”.
He said that Taitz simply put on 8 witnesses who provided testimony that he couldn’t properly evaluate.
He said “this court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses’ testimony without adequate knowledge of their qualifications…for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his or her qualifications must first be proved”.
This COMPLETELY NEGATES all of the "evidence" they presented for the purposes of an appeal.
Appellate courts don't generally "find fact". They revue procedure.
I would not completely rule out the possibility that Taitz intentionally failed to qualify her witnesses as "experts".
Why do I say this? Look into her background. For example, she speaks Hebrew. She speaks Hebrew because she is Jewish.
Can somebody please find out if Orly Taitz holds Israeli citizenship?
As for the “natural born citizen” issue, Malihi says that “persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for ArticleII, Section 1 purposes, REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.
According to Malihi an anchor baby born to two illegal wetbacks is “natural born” and is therefore eligible to be President of the United States.
ANCHOR BABIES ARE "NATURAL BORN CITIZENS".
ABOUT ORLY TAITZ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz
Orly Taitz was born to a Jewish family in Chişinău, Moldavian SSR in the Soviet Union (present day Moldova). Both of her parents were science teachers. In 1981, Orly immigrated to Israel, where she obtained a dentistry degree at Hebrew University.
Before her national news exposure, Taitz was quoted in The Orange County Register in 2006 supporting Israeli military actions against Hamas and Hezbollah,[16] and downplaying the impact of the espionage trial of two American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers (charges against both were subsequently dropped). Taitz has also said that she lost relatives in the Holocaust and that her grandmother witnessed the Kishinev pogrom.
ORLY TAITZ IS AN ISRAELI!!!!
I think she is "Controlled Opposition".
The game is not over. Not by a long shot.
1-SOS Kemp can rule this against Obama from being placed on the ballot. BHO can appeal the case but cannot present any evidence in the appeals to support his claims.
2-Kemp could write a letter to Congress requesting a formal investigation into BHO background ***BEFORE HE PLACES BHO ON THE BALLOT*** Congress could then stall this to the point where BHO is NOT on the GA ballot.
3-Keep appealing the case until it hits the Supreme Court and then recuse the 2 BHO appointees.
Thanks moderator for excluding most of the obots
bullshit. Let them go somewhere to spout their
hate for America.
Hey y'all, never give up or they win.
Check this out....
Don't Dream It's Over by Crowded House (1986)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjBwAYIxUso
The ballot challenges were the last hope, and they are all failing, one at a time. First New Hampshire, then Alabama, now Georgia. There is little reason to believe that it will go better anywhere else.
I think it is game over. The only thing left is to hope for a defeat in the general election, but that is looking dicey as well.
Hello? Judge Malihi OFFERED the plaintiffs a default judgment. If they'd taken it, Malihi was obliged to take Obama off the GA ballot.
================================
No...he revealed that he would offer a default judgment but complied with the wishes of the plaintiffs to simply get their evidence and witnesses on the record. If they were arguing that they were offering something in contrast to a default judgement they would have had to have been given as much time as those arguments would have taken. No, he simply offered them a chance to get their evidence never heard in this way before. A default had to be the judgement in any case simply because of the contempt of court rules. He himself stood in for the defendants and became their advocate, offering info not even in admission. He will offer an opinion, not from what he was shown in evidence but the opinion he had formed prior to the evidence that itself refuted that opinion. The ruling was blatantly political and without anything backing it in reality.
So the fact that Obama fails eVerify and has numerous Social Security numbers and one issued from a state that he was never a resident [a requirement at the time it was issues in 1977] when he was supposed to be in Hawaii, all eluding [reasonable doubt] to identity fraud, is meaning less in a court of law.
Simple, we don't have a court of law.
Full disclosure: I am a liberal, but I enjoy reading opposition views. I am not going to debate the polls right now. They are interesting as a souce of conversation, but not a whole lot more than that. All you can actually say, if, like me, you refer to the Real Clear Politics average numbers is that the election appears as if it will be close. It is early February and there is a long way to go. Making determinations now is akin to choosing, through the data presently available, who will win the 2012 World Series. About all you can say now is it will not be Cleveland and even in saying that you could -- could -- be wrong.
What I do wish is that with the Georgia Aministrative Hearing Officer's (called in that jurisdiction a "judge") the Birther movment would finally give it a rest. It is over and serves now as an increasingly embarrassing.side show that has the effect of painting the principled right as part of the fringe. If you would like to read the Georgia decision you may do so here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012
For those opposed to Obama It is time to concentrate on defeating him at the ballot box and realize Birtherism is dead; that he will not be either removed from office nor denied a place on the ballot. Unless, that is, you want to (which I believe would be a horrible mistake for the right) climb into bed with James Farrah who is now saying Marco Rubio is ineligible to be President.
@Obots:
The Judge was in a huge hurry with each expert witness. He was cutting them off and not giving Orly time to introduce each one. Instead she got right to the point of their information.
It was very obvious to everyone in the room that Judge Malihi was very angry and prejudiced against the Plaintiffs. His Ruling only reinforces that.
All of the witnesses Resumes were included in their written documents that were entered into the record. Its obvious the Judge did not bother to read any of that material before he made his very flawed decision.
Basically he punished the Plaintiffs for even daring to question the new dictator...Obama.
Judge Malihi said in chambers he would rule a Default Judgement and would also take the time for the Plaintiffs to enter their evidence into the record. He was in a big hurry. Orly had requested TEN hours and got two hours. Real fair?
His next move was to viciously double-cross the Plaintiffs and Rule against them. This was a huge error on his part and will be an obvious reason for either an appeal, re-hearing or reversal.
The 'Constitution' doesn't "define" nbC ---because it is, first & foremost NOT serving as a dictionary besides the term,"natural" has already, long established, been defined to mean---that which is marked by freedom from affectation
B.O. JR ADMITS BEING BORN A BRIT
HIS U.S. CITIZENSHIP STATUS, IF , INDEED, HE POSSESSES ANY GRADE IS HARDLY FREE OF AFFECTATION
Pretty simple
Someone in Georgia should quickly file the same case, and accept the default when the lawyer doesn't show up again. Or, do this quickly in another state.
PS-Corsi will be on Coast to Coast Monday night.
He should bring up the issue, Noory most likely
won't...call in with questions on it.
I saw in another post that Malihi was "paid off". I don't think so. I believe that he received a Chicago style recommendation to rule in favor of Obama. Maybe he or his family would be in danger if he ruled against Obama, etc. Several people have been killed that were connected to Obama. You can google Donald Young, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., Michael Scott, Mark Pitman, etc.
A excellent rebuttal to the BS nonsense that went down in Georgia.
"All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen” "
-Snip-
Mario Apuzzo -
"Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none. "
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/all-that-is-wrong-with-georgia-state.html
I know I know, it was the little Obama fairy who told him so!
@lazer73
"Did Obama ever cite the Indiana case. Where the hell did the judge get that."
Yes, Obama's counsel cited it in the Motion to Dismiss. But even if he hadn't, it's safe to assume that Judge Malihi or his clerk found it during their legal research.
Unlike factual evidence, which must be introduced at the hearing and admitted to the record in order to be considered, case law is legal argument. The judge decides the law based on (1) considering the legal arguments presented by the parties, and (2) his own knowledge of law, and (3) research. The judge is NOT limited to the cases cited by the parties in their arguments. His job is to determine what the law is, not what the parties tell him that they believe the law to be.
If you think judges don't prepare for cases by doing research, well then, that's more evidence that you and other birthers (including that screechy Moldavan immigrant pretending to be a lawyer) know sh*t about law and legal procedure. Fortunately, Judge Malihi does.
@Anonymous @ 9:34
"Orly had requested two hours for her witnesses/evidence. The judge restricted her to one hour ..."
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong answer.
Orly requested two hours and was allowed two hours.
She used 1:20 hours.
Had Orly had an entire day or the or ten she never would have been able to qualify her so-called "experts" because none of them have expertise in the fields that matter. Orly is clueless what is necessary to examine and qualify a witness. Hell, she forgot to ask her witnesses to state their names for the record.
@California birther/dualer/doubter
SCOTUS will deny certiorari. This case will go no further than the Georgia Supreme Court.
Better send money. Hatfield expects to get paid.
Ok, let me get this straight. So now you are saying that every Republican and Democratic presidential candidate(who never brought any of this up), every member of congress, two different administrations in Hawaii, one Republican and one Democratic, including Gov. Lisa Lingle who campaigned for McCain, every member of the media including FOX news(who would don ANYTHING to embarrass Obama), Columbia and Harvard Universities(two of our most prestigious colleges), every judge who has entertained one of these cases(by my count 89), and on and on and on are all involved in a scheme going back some 50 years to fool us all, install the country's first black president, and....and....and just what exactly. Maybe the handful of armchair attorneys here and around the country are wrong, and the thousands of others who have looked at this case and dismissed it as silly know what they are talking about.
The longer this decision took to make, the more likely it was going to be in favor of Obama. It seems to me that the Constitutional definition of NBC has effectively been revised. Look for Marco Rubio to be on the ballot in November as VP for the Republicans.
Orly states at her website that Malihi is an IRANIAN
Ain't that some shit??
Hmmm...I don't think we should be mad at the judge. I don't think Orly Taitz's presentation helped the dual citizenship at birth argument either. I do think more attention should be paid to the fact of whether the Indiana state case trumps Supreme court cases where this was more clearly defined.
Also I wonder if the current INS citizenship definitions were presented since it delineates three different classes of citizens. I think that would have helped. Looking at the judge's ruling, it sounds like he concludes that a native-born citizen is a natural born citizen and that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently prove this is not the case according to the law. I don't recall if the plaintiffs argued whether Obama's citizenship comes by way of the 14th Amendment and why that would not make him a natural born citizen. If they did talk about it, then it looks like the judge did not consider it as part of his evidence. Or maybe he feels that argument should be made before the Supreme Court, who knows? I do think if they had spent more time on the 14th Amendment argument and what type of citizenship it grants, and also the whole statutory construction they may have solidified their case. I get the feeling the judge did not read any of the briefs filed as amicus. Maybe he was too tired? But not a good enough excuse....
But he does seem willing to hold Obama in contempt. I don't think the story ends here...I am intrigued to see what happens after this
@P5151
You may be right or maybe someone threatened him with something...I sense some corruption
What this Administrative Law Judge effectively did all by himself was:
a) Elevate the Indiana Appeals Court over the United States Supreme Court;
b) Negate the U.S. Constitution's specific differentiation between a "citizen" and a "natural born Citizen" wherein it dictates that any "citizen" can serve as a member of Congress but only a "natural born Citizen" can serve as POTUS/V-POTUS, and;
c) Establish legal precedent that anyone born in the U.S. can serve as POTUS/V-POTUS.
Lock-n-Load. We now live in a lawless country.
To the Plaintiffs and their attorneys:
This judge was TOO DUE DILIGENT in his pre-trial motion decisions to throw this out the way he did.
Take a different POV: Read between the lines.
He is telling YOU to APPEAL this. His hands were tied but if he has a triple digit iq, and is a PATRIOT, which I believe he is, he was SENDING YOU A MESSAGE BY FORMING A RIDICULOUS CONCLUSION OF THE DEFINITION OF NBC.
He definitely was given ex parte "advice" to heed.
Brian Kemp is no different.
The goons in the White House did their Opposition Research on these two, but remember before they got to Kemp, he did write, that refusing to attend the hearing is at "your own peril."
Just continue the process. The Truth will out!
For those who defame Orly, her experts were fine. The judge never voir dired them or objected. He could have bounced them. He didn't. AND he did rush her.
She really shouldn't have testified, however.
She is unique, speaking 8 languages, a dental and legal degree, and a black belt! Any of you can meet her qualifications?
He wanted her to end the hearing quickly because of the negative publicity.
After all, THERE WAS NO OPPOSING PARTY IN HIS COURTROOM!
Eventually, there will be some brave Members of Congress who will take a walk into the White House and remove him.
It may not come until after he is re-elected. He will be re-elected by fraud.
This nightmare will end, and as soon as he is removed, a whole new world will recover from his toxic edicts.
HISTORY WILL RECORD THE HEROES AND THE COWARDS IN THIS RAPE OF OUR CONSTITUTION!!
Why are people surprised by this? Everyone should realize that very few judges are going to risk a proper ruling when appeals are always an option. If Malihi ruled the proper way, then an appeal would fall into the lap of higher courts. They would then be forced to hear that appeal...and the higher up the chain the more grounded in truth the decision has to be. On the other hand, if Malihi punks out, like he did, appeals can just be ignored.
As a once proud American, I used to trust my Government and it's elected leaders as being chosen through fair elections and the Constitutional guarantees. I am no longer as proud as I... and I thought Mexico was corrupt?
Its all about money, which buys power, which corrupts special interests, which CONTROLS the system they they want in place. Just like Mousilini, Hitler, Chavez, Castro, Mao and now... guess who? ~ Buck U. Ofama
OH MY ... is Anonymous/1:53PM an Obot or has Poe's Law taken over the world?
http://www.birthersummit.org/news/84-an-open-letter-to-the-post-a-emails-sharon-rondeau.html
@anon 07:35
This is what Malihi wrote:
"Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding.
Nonetheless, despite the Defendant's failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence.
The Court granted the Plaintiff's request."
This suggests that the plaintiffs had the opportunity to win, but threw it away by forcing the judge to decide the case based on American law and not birfer conjecture.
Hatfield, et al, COULD have won by saying NOTHING. But they couldn't take that route.
@Anonymous
The witnesses all testified to their background, occupation, and area of expertise immediately after being sworn in. The Judge was just looking for a flimsy excuse to disregard or invalidate their testimony.
Dear Secretary of the State of Georgia, Brain Kemp:
I am writing you to express my alarm and outrage with regard to Judge Malihi’s absurd reccomendations viz a viz Obama’s recent ballot eligibility challenge.
As you as well aware, Obama and his legal counsel brushed off your admonition not to suspend participation in the hearing, and failed to appear for their court date.
In addition to their clearly contemputeous behavior towards you and the rule of law, Obama and his attorney failed to meet their burden of proof by providing any admissable evidence that would support their contention that Obama was born in the USA.
Obama and his lawyer also failed to submit any argument or cite any legal precedents that would persuade one to believe that Obama meets the Constituional criteria to run for the office of President of the United States.
Conversely, Judge Malihi appears to have acted as Obama’s defacto defense lawyer in that he seems to have taken it upon himself to cite case law that was never properly submitted into the court records by Obama’s attorney.
This leads me to ask you, why is Judge Malihi acting as an advocate for Obama’s absent attorney when he is supposed to be acting as an impartial ajudicator?
I would like to respectfully remind you that it is incumbant upon Judge Malihi to only consider the those facts and arguments that were entered into the court’s records before the designated Feb 1, 2012 deadline.
As you well know, Obama’s lawyer submitted NOTHING into the record that could legitimately be used as the basis for Judge Malihi’s reccomendations. In fact, Obama’s lawyer failed to make any affirmative defense whatsoever.
The only fair reccomendations that I see, given the facts that were in evidence, is the following…
A default judgement against Obama for failing to appear,
A reccomendation to the local court (Fulton County?) that Obama and his lawyer be held in contempt and lastly that Obama’s name be withheld from the Georgia ballot.
Anything less than this is a total miscarriage of justice in my opinion.
Sincerely, James Daniel Flynn
@Anonymous Taitz has experience in courtrooms, it would appear to me that she did present her expert witnesses but that the "expert" wasn't what the judge considered expert. It is puzzling how Obama cleared the earlier election qualifications. Shouldn't those individuals be held accountable as well? Berg had his injunction filed in a timely manner. It's good to know Hatfield will be appealing this decision.
@Brian
Brian....DREAM ON.
Had Obama been properly vetted, there wouldn't be any need for these eligibilty court cases in the first place, now would there?
You badmouthing someone who believes in the Constitution shows that you are on the same page as your de facto president.
Obama is a disgrace, and judge Malihi and you are too.
"Anonymous said...[Reply]
@Anonymous
The witnesses all testified to their background, occupation, and area of expertise immediately after being sworn in. The Judge was just looking for a flimsy excuse to disregard or invalidate their testimony."
While some of the witnesses Orly presented "may" be expert in some field of expertise none of they are expert in the fields in which Orly was trying to present them. And no, she did not qualify any of them as expert witnesses, as she wouldn't have the first clue how to even if they were. Nor does she understand how to authenticate any document (none of which were) so they are inadmissible hearsay. In a real court of law not one of her witnesses would be allowed to testify as an expert nor any of their so-called documentation be admitted.
"Anonymous said...[Reply]
Orly states at her website that Malihi is an IRANIAN
Ain't that some shit??
February 4, 2012 12:43 PM "
So??? And Orly's Russian.
"Anonymous said...[Reply]
So the fact that Obama fails eVerify and has numerous Social Security numbers and one issued from a state that he was never a resident [a requirement at the time it was issues in 1977] when he was supposed to be in Hawaii, all eluding [reasonable doubt] to identity fraud, is meaning less in a court of law."
Since none of those allegations have been proven factual, yeah, meaningless.
Also completely meaningless with regards to eligibility, even if true.
"Anonymous said...[Reply]
Hello? Judge Malihi OFFERED the plaintiffs a default judgment. If they'd taken it, Malihi was obliged to take Obama off the GA ballot."
Malihi never offered a default "judgment." He offered a default "order." Huge difference.
"2-Kemp could write a letter to Congress requesting a formal investigation into BHO background ***BEFORE HE PLACES BHO ON THE BALLOT*** Congress could then stall this to the point where BHO is NOT on the GA ballot."
Obama IS ON the GA ballot. He was placed there, according to GA law, at the request of the Dem party. Absentee voting began some time ago.
It's not a matter of placing him, it's a matter of does he remain.
@Anonymous yeah, well why weren't they THERE then?
Obama failed to submit to the courts any affirmative defense.
What is an affirmative defense?
According to USlegal.com's Legal Definitions an affirmative defense is....
"a type of defense in which the defendant seeks to avoid liability by introducing new evidence not addressed in the claims of the plaintiff's complaint. Such a defense must be raised in the defendant's answer, and because affirmative defenses require the assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, the defendant has the burden of proof for the defense. The burden of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be clear and convincing or preponderance of the evidence. An affirmative defense must be timely made by the defendant in order for the court to consider it, or else it is considered waived by the defendant's failure to assert"
Please take note of these 4 important facts...
1. The burden of proof is on the defendant to assert an affirmative defense within the specified period of time allowed by the court to answer the complaint. Obama's lawyer failed to file an answer to the plaintiffs complaint or assert an affirmative defense.
2. If a defendant forfeits his right to answer a complaint within the procribed or mandated period of time he forever loses his right to do so.
3. Judge Malihi not only failed to recognise that Obama's had waived his right to assert an affirmative defence, Judge Malihi actually took it upon himself to assert an affirmative defense on behalf of Obama in his absence.
4.Judge Malihi had no legal right to act as Obama's defense lawyer.
@Anonymous Said:
"There are what - 100,000 lawyers in the US. A huge number anyway.
Where are they?
Where are all the constitutionalists?"
They all know the laws and the constitution and know that Obama is eligible to hold office. That's why you get stuck with a mail-order lawyer who's more interested in herself than her actual case.
My eyes are too worn to read all of this in one day. My helper will assist. From what I gather, obama has you right where he wants you, pissing amonst youselves until it becomes too late to shake it off. Better bring some of this credible know-it-all ( it's out there ) together. It's all hands to the handle now.
non carborundum illegitemus
Post a Comment
“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)
I am forced to moderate the comments at this site due to the Obama defenders constant porn spam and threatening comments.