Replies

A possible "strategy" for the non-appearance by Jablonski has been explained at Liberty Legal Foundation's website. "Understand that the goal of the Georgia ballot challenge was to have a court rule on the merits of the Constitutional question: Does the term “natural born citizen” in Article II of the Constitution require a Presidential candidate to have two parents that were U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born? Obama wants to avoid having a court rule on this question. That is why he didn’t show up and ordered his attorneys to not show up.

Obama was hoping that the Georgia court would enter a default judgment rather than rule on the merits. If the court enters a default judgment, Obama will have succeeded in avoiding the Constitutional eligibility question. He will then appeal the default judgment, get the appellate court to suspend the default judgment pending appeal, and then delay the appeal until after the primary. This is undoubtedly Obama’s plan."

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1665/is-the-judicial-branch-dead/

Obama was hoping that the Georgia court would enter a default judgment rather than rule on the merits. If the court enters a default judgment, Obama will have succeeded in avoiding the Constitutional eligibility question. He will then appeal the default judgment, get the appellate court to suspend the default judgment pending appeal, and then delay the appeal until after the primary. This is undoubtedly Obama’s plan.”

You make it sound so easy..any appeal will generate “discovery”. That is why Orly, Farrar etc. entered a mountain of evidence into the record during the hearing. obama may have wanted a default judgment in lieu of the hearing in order to preclude entering any evidence by the plaintiff’s. Now the court has evidence on file and in the court record that obama will have to defend on appeal...a perfect storm.