Georgia Ballot Challenge News

Art2Superpac.com ^ | 2-3-2012 | Art2Superpac.com

[Danae]

Georgia Ballot Challenge News
February 3rd, 2012

Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden vs. Obama - Judge Michael Malihi's Final Order - Georgia Ballot Access Challenge - 2-3-2012

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”.

Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden vs. Obama - Judge Michael Malihi's Final Order - Georgia Ballot Access Challe...

[Danae]

Game on.

Malihi made some serious errors. I wonder if the Judges in chambers meeting before the actual hearing was recorded? Was there a court reporter in the room??

:0

Me thinks that Malihi is well aware his ruling is not going to stand. The appeal will shred his decision.

[Danae]

Ping to the usual subjects.

It seems like the other threads are getting rather long. SO I chose to post this story which confirms that Hatfield at least is going to appeal.

:)

[Tucker39]

An honest question: This Mark Hatfield........there used to be a senator from Oregon by that name......a rather decent fellow, but with about the same size stones as Lindsey Grahamnesty when it comes to hardnosed justice. This wouldn’t be HIM would it?

[thecodont]

A positive development. Thanks for the ping.

Chin up!

[Fred Nerks]

thanks for the ping, Lucy, did you see this?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Thanks Danae!

Keep fighting the good fight!

When I get down and think the fight is lost, I think of the men who sacrificed it all to give us the gift of America.

If they could face and win against seemingly insurmountable odds, then so can we.

We can't let them down!

[philman_36]

@Representative Mark Hatfield

[SvenMagnussen]

Hatfield commentary on appeal.

Notes for appeal:

Appellate review, based as it is upon the written record assembled at the trial level, is often deferential, particularly with regard to discretionary trial management decisions, issues heavily intertwined with fact and testimonial credibility, and the trier of fact's determination of guilt. Review of the trial court's elaboration of legal standards is generally de novo, and many jurisdictions also review de novo the application of constitutional or other legal standards to the facts (e.g., Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996)).

When a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the “plain legal error” standard of review.  Glover v. Ware, 236 Ga.App. 40, 45(3), 510 S.E.2d 895 (1999).   Moreover, “[w]here it is apparent that a trial court's judgment rests on an erroneous legal theory, an appellate court cannot affirm.  [Cit.]” Gwinnett County v. Davis, 268 Ga. 653, 655, 492 S.E.2d 523 (1997).   This is such a case.   See Wood v. Dan P. Holl & Co., 169 Ga.App. 839, 841(2), 315 S.E.2d 51 (1984).

[LucyT]

Georgia Ballot Challenge News

Thanks for the pings.

[nd76]

Also, in administrative hearings, the presiding officer is obligated to base his decisions upon “substantial evidence on the whole record”. If the decision is not based on such substantial evidence on the whole record, the decision is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law and is required to be reversed.

[SatinDoll]

“Me thinks that Malihi is well aware his ruling is not going to stand. The appeal will shred his decision.” (Danae)

Thanks for the information, Sven.

All through the past three years there have been judicial decisions wrought with errors. Leo Donofrio has been picking those out, highlighting them, like breadcrumbs along a trail. One suspects the decisions to have been done purposefully in an effort to propel this issue to SCOTUS.

[SvenMagnussen]

“Also, in administrative hearings, the presiding officer is obligated to base his decisions upon “substantial evidence on the whole record”. If the decision is not based on such substantial evidence on the whole record, the decision is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law and is required to be reversed.”

- nd76

“Mixed questions of law and fact that require the consideration of legal concepts and involve the exercise of judgment about the values underlying legal principles are reviewable de novo.” citing United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1204 (9th Cir. 1982) (en banc):

[Hotlanta Mike]

Atty. Van Irion to Appeal Judge Malihi’s Decision: Court Ignored Basic Rules of Interpretation

“The one point of good news from this ruling is that we have FINALLY gotten a court to rule on the merits of our argument. This may seem like a hollow victory, but it isn’t. Before this everyone that has brought a challenge against Obama’s eligibility has been dismissed on procedural grounds. Nothing is more devastating to the rule of law than a judicial branch that refuses to do its job. Before this case we had courts across the country telling Americans that they had no right to enforce the Constitution. That was absurdity at its most extreme. Liberty Legal Foundation found a case that we believed would at least get a ruling on the merits. We hate the ruling we got, but at least we got a ruling. Now we can appeal that ruling. The appeals process now will focus on the definition of “natural born citizen” rather than procedure for the first time since the issue of Obama’s eligibility was raise in 2008.”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/attorney-van-irion-to-appeal-judge.html

[Major Matt Mason]

No. The Mark Hatfield you're referring to passed away a few months ago.

[Danae]

I am from Oregon, and no, it’s not that Mark Hatfield. He died in August. I still don’t know what of. I didn’t really look into it.

[Danae]

I am tryin!
:D

[Danae]

We can’t give up.

It isn’t that we are fighting a lost cause - something that is literally unprovable by history or law. On the contrary, we have researched and proven the history time and time again from source after source. We have verified the laws in force, and proven both the relevance of those laws and what they mean in both smaller and larger senses.... we are fighting a system set to ignore it all, and arbitrarily decide what is and what isn’t law based upon their preferences, not the actual law, or real history.

We will own congress in 2013. We WILL own the White House.

It’s just a matter of getting from point A to point B in time.

When that happens, liberals and progressives will cry, because we are going to set about undoing all their works. That’s a WHEN, not an IF.

We MUST put the Judiciary on the list of things to reform. We really must get serious about this. That means investigating Judicial candidates in detail. No more free passes.

God’s speed to Van Irion and Mark Hatfield and all those behind the scenes making it all happen. AMEN!

[Danae]

I appreciate your optimism... but I think it is a significant number of cowards who fear to stand up to power. The fix is in, IMHO. Its gonna take some stones to do the right thing. Beyond the every day set of stones that is. We have not seen a Judge with a set yet.

[frog in a pot]

Thanks for the link.

The most immediate and proper appeal may be to the SOS under a duty to exhaust administrative remedies. GA attorney Hatfield, of course, will know the proper approach.

One hopes Hatfield gives serious consideration to attorney Mario Apuzzo’s comments on the GA opinion. SOS Kemp has been very involved in GA election issues and while he is not an attorney, the arguments are easily understood.

Whatever is decided by the SOS, the matter will be settled in a courtroom. As such, it is easy to imagine that as a husband and father with a young family Kemp would prefer that mode of resolution.

[Danae]

I am just relieved that it is getting appealed!

[Elle Bee]

it is important to remember that here we have a jurist, Malihi, who deliberately and consciously issued a decision of which he was aware was contrary to the facts and law before him

That judges believe they can continue this with impunity is at the core of the failure of our our judicial system

.

[SteveH]

"the Judge has a record of placing the burden on the candidate, but didn't do so in this case."

So...

Was it a personal threat?

The prospect of widespread rioting?

Or a roundabout method to get it to SCOTUS faster?

[Ancesthntr]

I think it likely that the judge was strongly pressured (i. e. threatened - we are dealing with the thugs from Chicago, who doubtless include the mob) to decide for Obama. His decision was so contrary settled law that it guaranteed an appeal - and since he ruled on the merits, that it what will be the subject of the appeal. Rather brilliant, actually. He may turn out to be one of the great unsung heroes of this entire sordid affair. Not all participants in a battle operate in the open.

So I hope and pray is the case here.

[little jeremiah]

placemark

[wastoute]

“The King” doesn’t have to do anything. Every judge knows this.

[elvis-lives]

“The one point of good news from this ruling is that we have FINALLY gotten a court to rule on the merits of our argument.”
____________________

Not good news. The court looked at the evidence and decided that all lacks merit.

I posted on another thread that this was completely bungled by incompetent lawyering. The Plaintiffs had a Default Judgement in hand when Obamas team refused to answer the subpoena. We won. They had a properly filed petition to take Obama off the ballot and then they had a default judgement from a court of jurisdiction, agreeing with the plaintiff. But Taitz was arrogant and wanted to present evidence. The court found the evidence so weak that even when it was not challenged by Obama and team, the judge ruled against it. Rather than walking away with a victory, Obama now has a second court that has ruled for them.

As posted earlier, Taitz refusal to take the default judgement and attempt to get the “evidence” recorded is the equivalent of having 21 in Blackjack but then asking for another card. Ridiculous.

If anyone ever expects anything to ever come of this, I suggest that funds be collected for a competent attorney because one with an internet degree is just not going to cut it.

[aruanan]

Not good news. The court looked at the evidence and decided that all lacks merit.

In an earlier case, the Georgia Secretary of State overruled that particular judge, saying that if you accepted his ruling it would mean that the "candidate can determine his or her own qualifications."

[elvis-lives]

Then why bring this case at all?

[elvis-lives]

I mistook your post to mean that a similar finding had been overturned, but on second glance I found that you were referring to a situation whereby a Democratic candidate had shady eligibility and this judge ruled againts him. The liberal, Democratic Secretary of State ignored the ruling of the judge and allowed the candidate on the ballot. Don’t know what that has to do with the Obama situation.

[Drew68]

I suggest that funds be collected for a competent attorney because one with an internet degree is just not going to cut it.

Competent attorneys don't want anything to do with this stuff. Crackpot dentists, 9-11 truthers and bass players masquerading as "constitutional scholars" are the best that birthers have been able to muster. Gotta dance with the ones who brung you!

[elvis-lives]

Even a marginal attorney would have jumped on the default judgement. A default judgement against a sitting president and you refuse it, then lose the case without an opponent.

It’s like that old Polish joke about the football team that is being beaten so badly at 200-0 that the ref calls the game at halftime. 45 minutes after the opposing team goes home, the Polish team scores its first touchdown.

Taitz dropped the ball.

[Hotlanta Mike]

What does Orly Taitz have to do with the 2 other cases presented to Judge Malihi that focused solely on the issue of NBC?

[SvenMagnussen]

“The court looked at the evidence and decided that all lacks merit.”

Evidence and testimony ruled to lack merit in the face of no opposition is what happens when the trier of fact becomes an advocate for a political agenda. How does the Judge go from Ordering the Defense to prove eligibility in a pre-trial Order to dismissing the merits of the case when there is no opposition?

Summary Judgment for the defense, without motion from the defense, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewable, de novo.

[aruanan]

The liberal, Democratic Secretary of State ignored the ruling of the judge and allowed the candidate on the ballot.

That wasn't in the blurb of the story I read.

[Las Vegas Ron]

God’s speed to Van Irion and Mark Hatfield and all those behind the scenes making it all happen. AMEN!

Ditto!

Good post, Danae.

[elvis-lives]

This is not a Summary Judgement.

[SvenMagnussen]

Summary judgment is proper only when no issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Ford v. Bank of America Corp., 277 Ga.App. 708, 627 S.E.2d 376 (2006).

[elvis-lives]

I know what a Summary Judgement is. No one moved for Summary Judgement and none was addressed. This is a ruling by a judge that says the evidence was laughable and the their definition of NBC is flawed. Straight up.

They should have taken the default judgement and gone to the Sec of State. If that failed, then they would have had an opportunity to march the case upward through the courts. Now they have an adverse ruling.

Bad Lawyering.