Posted on 02/05/2012 11:52:55 AM PST by 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”.
(Excerpt) Read more at art2superpac.com ...
That judges believe they can continue this with impunity is at the core of the failure of our our judicial system
.
So...
Was it a personal threat?
The prospect of widespread rioting?
Or a roundabout method to get it to SCOTUS faster?
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.
placemark
“The King” doesn’t have to do anything. Every judge knows this.
“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.
Then why bring this case at all?
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.
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!
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.
What does Orly Taitz have to do with the 2 other cases presented to Judge Malihi that focused solely on the issue of NBC?
“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.
Ditto!
Good post, Danae.
This is not a Summary Judgement.
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.
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.