Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihiís Decision...
Natural Born Citizen ^ | February 3, 2012 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Posted on 02/04/2012 7:39:14 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike

Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html . I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.

The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

(Excerpt) Read more at puzo1.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birther; moonbatbirther; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last

1 posted on 02/04/2012 7:39:20 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

According to NPR via NYT
NEWT leads Mitt 39-32
when FL vote divided per RNC rules!

Pass the word!


Click to Donate to Newt Gingrich

CONTACT FOR RNC: website@nrcc.org

310 First Street
Washington DC 20003

Encourage them to do the RIGHT thing, end the FL fiasco NOW, Play by the rules!

2 posted on 02/04/2012 7:43:38 AM PST by hoosiermama (FR Unite... Get active contacting MSM, RNC. etc... freepmail : Mountain Mary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Bottom line: The dictator’s thugs got to the judge.


3 posted on 02/04/2012 7:52:32 AM PST by crosshairs (Liberalism is to truth, what east is to west.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike; LucyT

As posted a plethora of times:!

The unreported and unprecedented meeting with eight out of nine of our most blackest robed at SCOTUS on January 14, 2009, very effectively took care of future court challengers of the NBC issues!!

It trickled down to the lower courts, to State and Municipality officials. Jack Maskel’s memos silenced ALL 535 CONcritters, incl. newly Tea Party elected candidates in 2010. The United States under the usurper and an illegal alien are without any foundational laws = CONSTITUTION!!!


4 posted on 02/04/2012 8:04:31 AM PST by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crosshairs

That was my first thought. Probably walked in and dropped off photos of the judge’s kids and family. This is the sickest thing about Chicago-style thug politics: everyone knows Zero’s enablers are more than capable of stooping to such tactics, but no one is willing to say it.


5 posted on 02/04/2012 8:04:55 AM PST by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

I still suspect that Zer0 lost his citizenship in the move to Indonesia and his CIA connected grammar finessed it back upon his return to the US.


6 posted on 02/04/2012 8:24:33 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

This speaks volumes about the dishonesty of this article:

“The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States.”

But the section he refers to is the case where the plaintiffs said that even if born in the USA, Obama was disqualified because of his father. So the judge said, “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States....”

The judge was analyzing that PART of the argument, and not trying, in that section, to determine birth location.


7 posted on 02/04/2012 8:24:51 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

So the Judge determined that the birth certificate was real?
I know it was provided by Plaintiffs and BO refused to submit anything. This analysis is very convaluted. The purpose of the testimony was to show the BC was fake. This Judge could have ruled using the coffee mug BO is selling.
What a joke. I hope Sheriff Joe has something but that seems like another string along the masses concept. If he has something,he needs to get it out soon. The Dems are going after Joe and the Repubs are trying their best to ignore Fast & Furious. Any ideas?


8 posted on 02/04/2012 8:43:07 AM PST by DrDude (Governor of the 57th State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
Mr. Apuzzo may call Ankeny as "bad law" and I suppose folks can use that phrase as an excuse not to read it or try to understand it. Now another Judge has found the ruling in Ankeny "persuasive." Retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that Obama is eligible to be President because he was born in Hawaii. The entire Congress certified the 2008 election. I've read the cases and the history books as much as anybody, and I found not one word in Malihi's ruling that surprised me. Perhaps one might consider the possibility that instead of Ankeny being bad law, Apuzzo has a bad argument. And anyone who thinks a judge is going to be persuaded by Apuzzo is setting themselves up for a disappointment.
9 posted on 02/04/2012 8:45:57 AM PST by Doc Conspiracy (Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy
Perhaps one might consider the possibility that instead of Ankeny being bad law, Apuzzo has a bad argument. And anyone who thinks a judge is going to be persuaded by Apuzzo is setting themselves up for a disappointment.

Exactly right. The footnotes in Judge Malihi's opinion cite numerous Supreme Court decisions from the 19th Century stating that a Natural Born Citizen is one born in the U.S., regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

10 posted on 02/04/2012 8:56:50 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You said: “But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States.”

That’s not correct. A copy of the President’s long-form birth certificate was submitted into evidence by Welden, Powell, and Swensson who RELIED on it to make their case that Barack Obama’s father was Kenyan.

In addition to that, Orly submitted various exhibits including the Indonesian school form that said Obama’s place of birth was Hawaii. Further she submitted the Allen FOIA (Soetoro immigration file) that contains a 1967 State Department memo to the file saying Barack Obama was born in Honolulu.

While Orly spent some time trying to convict the President of forgery, social-security fraud and using a false name, I didn’t hear one word claiming that Obama was born outside the United States.

So I cannot see how the Judge could have seen anything to make him think Obama was born outside the United States.

I continue to marvel at how the birthers continue to put their hopes in the totally inept Orly Taitz, who screwed this case up beyond recognition.


11 posted on 02/04/2012 9:00:54 AM PST by Doc Conspiracy (Fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy

UPDATE – Georgia ruled and it’s not good. Judge Malihi found Wong Kim Ark to be the deciding standard. That means anyone can fly over to the U.S. have a baby and fly back to another country, raise their kid there and when that kid moves back to the U.S. he or she can run for President. We’ll post more and send out a message tomorrow.

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/


12 posted on 02/04/2012 9:03:22 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
With 6 other states watching this process, I think the whole thing was a set-up from the beginning in order to "bury" the citizenship issue for obama for the upcoming election.

This puts it "on record" that a "judge" has declared obama to be a NBC, and, discourages the other states from following suit.

Another "perfect storm" for the obama people. The fix is in.

OBAMAMALIHI, OBAMA'S APPEAL
13 posted on 02/04/2012 9:05:29 AM PST by FrankR (You are only enslaved to the extent of the entitlements you receive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

Makes me sick to my stomach. FReeper David said as much last night.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2842152/posts?page=335#335

They don’t even have to fly back “home”. They can stay right here.


14 posted on 02/04/2012 9:21:08 AM PST by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: David

Oops, sorry David. Should have pinged you to post #14.


15 posted on 02/04/2012 9:23:24 AM PST by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy

Get lost Commie retread troll.


16 posted on 02/04/2012 9:29:40 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

So the Judge set a new legal precedent...you can not show up for court and tell the Judge to f*ck off and still win! Amerika what a country!

Prayerfully, the Georgia SOS has some cajones and ignores the Judge’s recommendation and takes Øbama off the ballot.


17 posted on 02/04/2012 9:48:04 AM PST by bjorn14 (Woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: danamco

“...very effectively took care of future court challengers of the NBC issues!!”

Then WHY has Bath-House Barry had to spend millions to fight these cases????

Not everyone got the memo?


18 posted on 02/04/2012 9:50:31 AM PST by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: crosshairs

You wrote: “Bottom line: The dictator’s thugs got to the judge.”

Yes, I believe they did.

Barack Hussein Obama is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and is, therefore, an UNCONSTITUTIONAL president . Every member of the Executive Branch, both Houses of Congress, the Judiciary AND the highest levels of the US Military knows this to be a fact (tell me that guys like Maj Gen Paul Vallely (Ret) and his former associates haven’t talked about it... damn, it’s an open secret!)

Now here’s how the “pressure” works on the judges and it does not even have to be a “threat.”

The judge gets a phone call or perhaps even a visit. “Judge, we highly really recommend that you find in favor of the President. You know that if he is kept of the ballot, that there will be race riots in Atlanta and even perhaps other cities like Boston, DC, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago,... and so on and so on. Do YOU want to be the person responsible for making that happen? The Nation, thereby, would be thrown in civil disorder making the country vulnerable to OUTSIDE threats while our law enforcement, National Guard and maybe even our military attend to these civil disturbances. Again, do you want to be responsible for that?”

The mere fact that Barack Hussein Obama, an UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT, is in of itself A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT. He will not ever be impeached or removed in any judicial process and he certainly will not resign. We and Our Nation are being held hostage, hopefully, for only the near-term.

WE HAVE TO BEAT HIM AT THE BALLOT BOX, I’m sorry to say.

As much as I hate this man, I pray daily for his safety BUT if My Lord In Heaven decides to “call him home” by way of a myocardial infarction, it will not bother me one bit.


19 posted on 02/04/2012 9:50:46 AM PST by Joe Marine 76 ("It's The Natural Born Citizenship, Stupid!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

Just remember, this is an administrative judge ruling on an administrative hearing to be on the primary ballot. Once the SOS makes a decision there will be appeals to the GA Superior Court based on the judges’ arguments.


20 posted on 02/04/2012 10:01:29 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14

Prayerfully, the Georgia SOS has some cajones and ignores the Judge’s recommendation and takes Øbama off the ballot.
_________________________________________

Yes its still up to the SOS

Maybe the SOS will ask the judge to explain how he reached his conclusion...


21 posted on 02/04/2012 10:01:59 AM PST by Tennessee Nana (Romney I like firing people......and I’m not concerned about the very poor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
Since Obama failed to carry his burden of proof as to his place of birth and Judge Malihi’s decision actually confirms that fact, the Georgia Secretary of State should reject Judge Malihi’s decision and rule on his own that Obama not be placed on the primary ballot.

@ Georgia Secretary of State to Obama Atty Jablonski
Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge. Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.

No celebrations quite yet. Just more of the same...continue to distract, continue to try and convince everyone it's pointless and useless to continue 'cause a decision has been rendered.

We'll see what happens next. The ball is in SoS Kemp's court (pun intended) now.

22 posted on 02/04/2012 10:15:00 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
The Constutional Meaning Of "Natural Born Citizen"
23 posted on 02/04/2012 10:16:03 AM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14
So the Judge set a new legal precedent...
You might want to read my reply 22 before you start celebrating.
24 posted on 02/04/2012 10:16:47 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14

Yes, I read your whole reply.


25 posted on 02/04/2012 10:18:17 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

So the Judge set a new legal precedent...

...useless to continue 'cause a decision has been rendered.

26 posted on 02/04/2012 10:21:19 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bjorn14
You did it backwards. You should have put your support for Kemp first.
Instead you placed what you wanted reinforced in people's mind first.

Just my opinion and I could be wrong.

27 posted on 02/04/2012 10:35:50 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
...this Court considered...

Think about that for a minute.
...this court determined...

Which would you rather he have said if you were the defendant?

28 posted on 02/04/2012 10:51:44 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Yes, my lower case "c" was deliberate.
29 posted on 02/04/2012 10:55:04 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
My apologies if I've killed your thread. It's a very good article.
30 posted on 02/04/2012 11:23:28 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy

“You said: “But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States.””

No, I did not. Mario Apuzzo wrote that. And he was being either dishonest or stupid.

In the section discussing the requirement to be a NBC, the judge wrote, “For the purpose of this section’s analysis, the following facts are considered: 1)Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2) Mr. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth; and 3) Mr. Obama’s father was never a United States citizen.

Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the timeof his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree.”

Having reviewed the evidence (or lack thereof) for Obama being born out of country in section 1, the judge now dealt with the complaint that stipulated that Obama was born in the US, but that he was still disqualified. The judge merely repeated what the plaintiff had agreed to beforehand, and then discussed why NBC would still apply to Obama (using the Indiana decision & WKA).


31 posted on 02/04/2012 12:05:30 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Doc Conspiracy; LucyT
“I continue to marvel at how the birthers continue to put their hopes in the totally inept Orly Taitz, who screwed this case up beyond recognition.”

Insulting constitutionalist FReepers by painting them all with the broad brush label “birthers” and insinuating that we all agree on anything (we don't agree on everything) or that even a majority “put their hopes” on Taitz is patronizing and inaccurate...and undermines attention that should be paid to your legal points...some of which I agree with.

I believe that you are correct in asserting that not one bit of evidence was presented by Taitz and her witnesses that pointed directly to an Obama birth outside of HI. I believe that such evidence exists, but it wasn't in the GA courtroom last week.

32 posted on 02/04/2012 12:08:33 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Since you're back would you care to address my question at #28?
Or is attempting to ignore me the only answer you have?
33 posted on 02/04/2012 12:09:53 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
“@ Georgia Secretary of State to Obama Atty Jablonski
Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.”

Kemp is (R), unlike Malihi. Now I will be REALLY be disappointed if Kemp agrees with Malihi’s punt to Ankeny, having been reminded that Kemp said that.

34 posted on 02/04/2012 12:13:21 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Doc Conspiracy
How about posting what the man actually wrote beyond one sentence?!

But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law.

Truly sad!

35 posted on 02/04/2012 12:20:21 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“Which would you rather he have said if you were the defendant? “

He CONSIDERED an argument made by the plaintiffs. He rejected it, writing:

“CONCLUSION

President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

SO ORDERED, February 3rd, 2012.”

If I was the defendant, I’d be pretty happy. I’d have preferred the decision go the other way, but then, I’m not the defendant.

Remember, in the previous section of his decision, the judge wrote, “None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, theCourt finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes
that Plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”


36 posted on 02/04/2012 12:22:34 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Doc Conspiracy

You can’t ignore context.


37 posted on 02/04/2012 12:24:15 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
@What does “considered” mean?

38 posted on 02/04/2012 12:26:59 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born.
39 posted on 02/04/2012 12:29:57 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; Doc Conspiracy

I have not ignored the context. If anyone wants the FULL context, it can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

A sitting President had his eligibility challenged. He offered a summary judgment, but the plaintiffs refused:

“Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request. By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski.”

They wanted Obama refused on the merit of their arguments. However, the judge decided the witnesses called were fakes without relevant expertise. He also said that the Indiana decision and WKA meant the existing law supports the idea that a NBC does not require citizen parents. He politely rejected the idea that the Minor decision was a ruling on the exhaustive meaning of NBC - which is painfully obvious to anyone who reads the entire paragraph in Minor.

The Plaintiffs insisted on a decision make on the strength of their argument, and the judge ruled them nuts. Their case was so weak that the defendant didn’t even need to show up in court to win. Think about that.


40 posted on 02/04/2012 12:33:41 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“@What does “considered” mean?”

Since you obviously don’t know, I cannot help you. I suggest use of a dictionary, or perhaps a remedial English class.


41 posted on 02/04/2012 12:35:23 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Doc Conspiracy
Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” 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.

Snip...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.
That's all in one paragraph. Did you not read the whole paragraph?

42 posted on 02/04/2012 12:37:41 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I'll paraphrase what you said up thread...

I didn't ask the question, Mario Apuzzo did.

43 posted on 02/04/2012 12:40:50 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Let's get the whole thing in...

Nonetheless, despite the Defendant's failure to appear, (here is where you start the quote you posted with quotation marks, despite the sentence having started earlier than you've indicated) Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request.
By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.

What's that?! He decided the matter on the merits and not the merits and evidence? There must not have been any evidence since he states quite clearly that the matter was decided on the merits alone.

44 posted on 02/04/2012 12:59:12 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
BTW...
If I was the defendant, I’d be pretty happy. I’d have preferred the decision go the other way, but then, I’m not the defendant.
That reply in no manner addresses the question I asked.

Which would you rather he have said if you were the defendant?

One of two choices...considered or decided, not @Yakety Yak, don't talk back.

45 posted on 02/04/2012 1:27:20 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony.

By deciding this matter on the merits...

46 posted on 02/04/2012 1:29:47 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“That reply in no manner addresses the question I asked. “

Yes, it does. You are just too stupid to figure it out.


47 posted on 02/04/2012 1:35:42 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

If that’s your story I suggest you stick with it.


48 posted on 02/04/2012 1:37:58 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

That is right. The plaintiffs had such a terrible case that they lost without the defendant even offering an argument, or showing up.

Your beliefs have so little legal merit that you couldn’t win even when your side was the only one presenting ‘evidence’. That is pretty pathetic.

I wish Georgia had ruled Obama ineligible, but apparently your side has even less merit than I believed. How sad is that?


49 posted on 02/04/2012 1:39:01 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Here's a clue...the Decision ends on page 3.

By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.

Those are the last sentences on page 3.
Footnote 1 on page 2 is most interesting... This Decision has been consolidated to include the four challenges to President Obama's candidacy filed by Plaintiffs David Farrar, et al., David P. Welden, Carl Swensson, and Kevin Richard Powell

Page 4 begins with...I. Evidentiary Arguments of Plaintiffs Farrar, et al

Yep, decided on the merits of the arguments, not upon any evidence.

50 posted on 02/04/2012 2:32:37 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson