Skip to comments.Indiana warns Obama of eligibility 'default'
Posted on 02/21/2012 11:00:52 PM PST by STARWISE
A state commission in Indiana that was asked to review whether Barack Obama is eligible to be on the states 2012 ballot has scheduled a hearing for Friday, and warned the parties to the argument that those who fail to attend may be subject to a default decision.
The notice was signed by Trent Deckard and J. Bradley King, co-directors of the Indiana Election Commission, and regards case No. 2012-176, which is a challenge to Obama brought by Karl Swihart.
The hearing is called to determine the merits of the candidate challenge pursuant to Indiana Code 3-8-1-2, the notice, addressed to Barack Obama at a Chicago address for his campaign, explains. A party who fails to attend or participate in the hearing may be held in default or have the proceeding dismissed.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Gee... where have we heard this before.
Anyone want to offer any odds on how this will all turn out?
Wonder how much it will cost us taxpayers for Obama to buy off Indiana like Georgia.
Under the Constitution, Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
I’ve said it before but...
Even if it turns to naught, we NEED these things to go through the process, win or fail. Eventually this stuff is going to end up in a big court case and the history books. We have to fight now to avoid the “Why didn’t anyone complain then?” questions and associated legal problems.
Thank you Starwise for this pikng and all the things you ping to me.
A party who fails to attend or participate in the hearing may be held in default or have the proceeding dismissed.
don’t show up and the issue just goes away???
should use that one for speeding tickets. oh yea, us ‘little people’ would get smacked with contempt of court or have a summons issued for our arrest.
if i were the prosecution and 0failure’s team didn’t show up... again... i would ask the judge if he was going to rule on evidence presented to the court and if such evidence is to be countered, to have the chance to address any such argument (unlike in the GA ‘ruling’) before any judgement is rendered.
Another judge to pressure/threat/buy...
Another judge to pressure/threat/buy...
Since the moment that the Kenyan Clown admitted dual citizenship on his campaign website back in 2008, the questions raised by such an admission have needed a full and public examination.
Yep Georgia choked on this one. Maybe we get better results out of IN.
We only need one state to declare him not eligible to be POTUS.
Agreed. Arizona was given numerous benefits when Brewer dropped the eligibility law. Georgia got two nuclear plants. every state should file this so they can get something from Obama. Eventually he will run out of money and really get zapped.
He’ll never run out of money.
First of all: he can print it.
Second: in his proposed lowering of corporate taxes, he includes taxing all corporate sales world-wide.
We can have 50% unemployment and 65% of all Americans receiving benefits while not paying in and there will still be enough money to pay the lawyers, subvert the judiciary and buy off the states.
You cannot starve the Beast. Fascism works.
sten:”dont show up and the issue just goes away???”
The default judgment would occur if the defendant does not show up and the dismissal would occur if the plaintiff does not show up....
For how long? Show me a nation where it does.
Long enough to bankrupt a large percentage of the population, sell off national assets and leave a sizable portion of the population pining for it to return even after it fails, because “at least the trains ran on time” (even if they didn’t).
I don’t disagree with you. It isn’t that fascism works to benefit anyone but the elite or can survive forever, it is just that fascism can survive for long enough to accomplish the goal of total control and destruction of the middle class while enriching anyone chosen by the government.
My point was that *they* don’t go broke; _we_ do.
Well our Sec of State here in GA held out for two new nuke plants so I hope Indiana gets something equally good for letting the POS off the hook.
I wish another attorney was representing this complaint (bless Orly’s heart).
I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not getting all wee-weed up about the potential peril to any party who fails to attend or participate in this hearing.
A default judgement gives the plaintiffs what they want - there is no need to enter any evidence at all.
What happened in Georgia is that the plaintiffs could have had a default judgement but they requested that the case be decided on the merits of their evidence and legal arguments.
The judge found both lacking.
Obama’s team made no arguments or presented no evidence - the plaintiffs failed to prove him ineligible.
Btw - the “have the proceeding dismissed.” is what happens when the plaintiffs fail to show.
I think Obama wants a state to rule against him so they can shift it into Federal Court and fight one battle instead of many.
The burden of proof is with the candidate seeking office.
The candidate seeking office told the judge and the citizens of Georgia to f&%#-off, and never showed up for the hearing.
The administrative hearings have their own rules.
Hatfield knew HE had the burden of proof - he specifically asked that the proof be shifted to Obama. The judge never granted his request.
On January 19, 2012, Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell filed a Motion For Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof in which Plaintiffs sought an order of the Court, pursuant to Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108-109, 538 S.E. 2d 430, 433 (2000), requiring Defendant Obama to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office. Not only did Judge Malihi not rule on Plaintiffs motion in advance of trial, as was requested by Plaintiffs, but the judge never even addressed or resolved the motion in his final ruling.
The perpetual motion machine of false hope.
you are a real piece of work, dismissal was never considered in Indiana (just like Georgia) despite saying they would
I wasn’t talking about Indiana