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.
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 Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot
Supposedly it came from someone named Dean Haskins. It is on one of the other threads.
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:
I agree!!
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.
Great quote!!!!!!
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.
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.