Replies

Georgia State Rules of Administrative Procedure allows ALJs to place the burden of proof on a party to the proceeding but does not describe in detail instances. See

http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/procedures/administrative-rules-osah.pdf

at 616-1-2-.07 Burden of Proof (1)(e)(2):

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge may determine that law or justice requires a different placement of the burden of proof.

The default is described in (1):

The agency shall bear the burden of proof in all matters except that...

It’s probably a bit loosy-goosy because it is an administrative law hearing and not a full court, so there maybe no formal rule in the administrative procedures for how to file a motion of this type.

So it seems to me that it is a letter from Hatfield to the ALJ (allowed if copies are sent to Obama’s lawyer) but intended to be regarded by the ALJ as a motion. The letter/motion was spurred by Obama’s response to Orly’s subpoena of the original long form birth records, etc. to quash the subpoena (as the letter mentions in para. 10). It is technically not a legal response brief to the quash which is in a parallel case (Farrar). The judge took the letter as a motion and ordered Obama to regard it as a “motion for (ALJ) determination of placement of burden of proof.”

Reading between the lines, I would guess that Hatfield may be beginning to feel confident about the judge’s leanings by writing a letter of this sort. He is taking no risk by referring to Orly’s case since he is mainly referring to the quash by Obama which after all is a legal document in the public view of a case which was only recently separated and still under the same judge.

Here I think one might reasonably conclude that without Orly and her efforts, not just with this case but over the preceding years, there might be no such letter forthcoming from Hatfield. Indeed, Swensson’s strategy is probably derived from a close study of Orly’s and others’ earlier failed attempts. It is seems possible that Hatfield and Orly might now be in genteel accord with one another and working in loose association with one another in finding a breach in Obama’s legal stonewalling, and then filing through.

Thanks for the explanation. It seemed to me that Hatfield was asking for the burden of proof to be placed upon Obama, which didn’t make sense to me, because the burden of proof has always been on Barack Obama. No one ever forced him to prove it, and instead took it either on faith or turned a blind eye.

I can’t figure Orly out to be honest. Her tenacious focus on the Birth Certificate I believe to have played into Obama’s hands. As long as people are spending their time and efforts on THAT, they aren’t researching legal history. It is the Legal history and the LAW which is the real issue,

I hope and PRAY that Hatfield not only has Donofrio’s analysis of Minor v Happersett AND McCarthy v. Briscoe (429 US 1317 - NOT the appellate court case of 1977, but the SCOTUS case (in chambers) 1976 case. Between those two SCOTUS cases, Obama is nothing but a criminal. BY LAW an Usurper.

My happy thought of the day - Obama removed from the White House in chains, Michelle in chains and tears behind him looking at paying reparations to the American people for all the money they have stolen from us. Yep. Happy thought! :)

Obama WILL be disgraced. This WILL happen. Sooner or later, it WILL happen.

Its people like you with clear objective analysis into the law and process which are helping to make it happen!