Skip to comments.No ruling in ‘birther' challenge
Posted on 01/26/2012 10:44:59 AM PST by Pfesser
After hearing evidence with neither President Barack Obama nor his lawyers in attendance, a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November.
Lawyers for area residents mounting "birther" challenges told Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi that Obama should be found in contempt of court for not appearing when under subpoena to do so. But Malihi did not indicate he would recommend that and cut off one lawyer when he criticized Obama for not attending the hearing.
"It shows not just a contempt for this court, but contempt for the judicial branch," lawyer Van Irion told Malihi.
"I'm not interested in commentary on that, counselor," Malihi quickly replied.
Late Wednesday, Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, wrote Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here -- a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country," Jablonski wrote.
Jablonski also served notice he would boycott the hearing.
In response, Kemp said the hearing to consider the challenges is required by Georgia law. "If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the [Office of State Administrative Hearings] proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril," Kemp wrote.
Thursday's hearing was held before a packed courtroom with almost every seat taken -- except for those at the defendant's table facing the judge.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Amazing the pure arrogance of this man and his ilk. He thumbs his nose at any other authority.
The judge got the word . . . as expected, the entire matter is now cut and dried.
Have the thugs gotten to the judge?
even if you think that this is all stupid and obama is being truthful surely one has to question why he just doe snot show the damn thing
Sounds like the fix is in. I wonder which member of the Malihi family found a bloodied horse’s head in their bed last night?
America is in the grip of a corrupt and illegitimate regime, and if the Constitution were on a heart monitor, it would be just about to flatline after this debacle in Georgia today.
Not once has he produced any solid evidence to anyone yet the socialist frauds in the MSM ignore it. His democrat drones keep licking his rear end. This is how people like hitler rise to power. We must put an end to this nonsense in November and politically destroy obama and his radical anti american regime before he destroys this country, which he despises.
Later Wednesday, the judge received a knock on the door from a man in a black trenchcoat...
Word from someone in the courtroom is that the judge told them in the pretrial meeting that he was going to recommend that Obama be kept off the Georgia ballot. Praying.
Sounds to me like Obama isn't out of the woods yet.
I want to know how this person knows what was said in camera?
What is the real issue here is whether or not Kemp is a Soro’s SoS.
If you’re speaking of anyone other than Orly, I’ll believe it. Otherwise not much of what comes from her comes to fruition. I, too, will be PRAYING that the judge keeps him off the ballot.
Please tell me word didn’t come from Orly :|
yet the socialist frauds in the MSM ignore it........and Hannity and Rush and Bill E-0-Reilly and Beck and .......
I had heard that someone submitted the DNC and RNC nomination papers from 2008 for Georgia with McCains stating he was constitutionally eligible, but the DNC had this statement removed.
I hope that holds some weight where even the DNC would not state he was constitutionally eligible.
“What is the real issue here is whether or not Kemp is a Soros SoS.”
Take that spew elsewhere. Brian Kemp is a republican and a person of integrity. No matter what decision he eventually arrives at George Soros won’t have anything to do with it. We may or may not like the final decision but Kemp will follow GA election law.
The Quote of the Decade:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ‘s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ‘s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
The burden of proof is not on the defendant, it is upon the prosecution. It has to be proven that he has NOT done so. So far, not done.
It has to be proven that he has NOT done so. So far, not done.
And, by “not done” I mean not proven in a court of law. So no flames, please!
Sounds like BS that a judge would state before a hearing what he was going to rule after the hearing.
O has not proven anything. Yet State law requires him to do so.
...The judge is expected to review the evidence and make a recommendation to the state whether there is reason to be concerned about Obamas name on the 2012 ballot
Supposedly it came from someone named Dean Haskins. It is on one of the other threads.
Much more information here:
Not if he knew that Obama or his lawyer were not going to show. The lawyer informed the SOS of that fact the night before. How could he find for someone that didn’t put on a defense?
Not BS, when you consider the circumstances.
Reportedly, the judge told the plaintiff's attorneys that he was going to enter a default judgement against Obama, because neither Obama or his representing counsel even showed up for the hearing.
The plaintiff's attorneys then asked for an opportunity to present their evidence to put it on record.
More info here:
Not BS in this case since the defendant didn't show. Default judgement against defendant is standard procedure in that case.
I don’t question that the judge would rule in favor of the plaintiffs given that the defendant and his attorney didn’t show or preent evidence.
It just seems terribly out of order for the judge to call counsel to chambers, tell them his intent, and magically folks sitting in the courtroom know what the judge told the attorneys in camera.
I don't think that the judge's intent was reported until after the hearing was over.
I wasn't watching the entire hearing, but I was following the discussion here on FR among people that were watching it. The report didn't come out until some time after the hearing finished.
Well the context was that in light of Obama's refusal to attend or even send a defense, the judge wanted to dispense with the hearing and issue a default judgement against Obama. The plantiffs then appealed to the judge to proceed with the hearing so that they could submit their testimony and let it become part of the record. The judge agreed to that. Thus the hearing proceeded.
justlurking just explained that this story didn’t come out till AFTER the hearing. I just found it peculiar that the judge would call counsel into his chamber, then the audience in the courtroom knew what had happened in chambers.
I’m not sure the audience did. I got the impression that the report was from one of the attorneys that was invited into the judges chambers. But I’m not certain of that.
It could be a bogus report. It’s a little worrisome, that the judge didn’t immediately issue the ruling. But my guess is that he is going to include references to the plantiff’s arguments in his ruling.
It would be great if we could get Obama disqualified on not being natural born for both the primary and the general election and then get Romney disqualified for the same reason.
The original story was from an audience member, so that raised a few flags ... we’ll see in time whether it’s true or not, and the chronology.
I’m not surprised Malahi hasn’t issued a ruling, given the witnesses, documents put into evidence, etc. He’ll want to write up a ruling that relates each of them to GA law regarding a candidate’s getting on the ballot. Then, too, there’s the matter of the defendant and his counsel literally just blowing off the court and GA law.
Since the ruling will be controversial no matter what, and probably appealed, this judge will want to set out very clear how his ruling was achieved.
But this is not a “birther” case. It is not based on the notion that a conspiracy has hidden the location of Obama’s birth.
The basis of this case is the precedent in Minor v. Happersett, which defined “natural born citizen” after the manner of Vattel’s notion of “natives”, thereby also agreeing with points made in the legislative history of the 14th Amendment. The birth certificate offered in pdf form by Obama is just fine. It confirms that his father was a British subject at the time of his birth, so the location of his birth is irrelevant: as defined by the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett, Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, and thus ineligible to be President.
If the judge rules on that basis, the appeal will have to get a higher court to rule against stare decisis to overturn the precedent of Minor v. Happersett, at which point the question over which “birthers” have exercised themselves would become a live issue.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. http://t.co/Qy873ai4
:: Take that spew elsewhere. ::
Really? I know nothing of Kemp and that’s why I asked. I didn’t deserve that.
http://is.gd/9Oj5m3 The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there
That is why they are all absolutely determined that there will never be such a ruling.
It's obvious (to me anyhow) that the reason Obama's lawyers "boycotted" the hearing is because if they showed up they would be forced to answer questions that would be devastating to the current illegal regime.
The biggest question that "Must Not Be Asked" in any venue where an answer is unavoidable is "Have you seen any of the documents in question?"
They haven't because those documents do not exist.
Well there is one court they will all attend, when they stand before God. Justice will be true in the end. For now, it seems most of the judicial branch has joined in the sucession from the Constitution that the Executive branch has spawned.
The burden of proof to establish eligibility is on the individual seeking the office.