Replies

There is something strange about this ruling and even perhaps the judge. For one thing the ruling as posted does not recognize any parentage at all. For another thing that a judge would make a decision based on SC of Indiana when there was evidence presented to the contrary on another higher USA court decision in conflict shows prejudice/preference . Another thing is that these kind of decisions appear to be orchestrated after a display of court fairness i.e. Carter and and the one in Washington. Something is going on that is way beyond and above the people of the USA whether that is money or fear or something else is crucial to the future of the USA. I found it interesting that this evening on Hannity Trump spoke out that there is so much unknown about Obama.

There are a lot of strange things about this ruling. The judge admits he was going to issue a default ruling, but changed his mind for the plaintiffs to present their cases, EXCEPT that they were put on leashes and given time limits. Also, it appears that the plaintiffs thought they were entering facts into the legal record and not necessarily arguing against the judge's biases. For example, who knew the judge was going to cite a 2008 appeals court as legal precedent, when it didn't prove nor even claim Obama was born in Hawaii and it didn't declare him to be a natural-born citizen. Further, the judge said he "considered" that Obama was born in Hawaii, but gives no basis for why it was considered. As the ALJ, he's supposed to present "Findings of Fact" and a consideration is not a proven fact. He dismisses Orly's experts for not establishing their expertise, yet they weren't given time. He says the PI didn't explain her methods and techniques ... and again, she wasn't given the time.

The plaintiffs didn't want this to go to a default judgment where it could be turned over on an appeal without a chance to argue against it, but they were screwed by a bait and switch move by the judge. I would hope the plaintiffs can explain this to the SoS. He could deny the conclusions of the ALJ if he feels it wasn't given a fair shake.

For example, who knew the judge was going to cite a 2008 appeals court as legal precedent, when it didn't prove nor even claim Obama was born in Hawaii and it didn't declare him to be a natural-born citizen. Further, the judge said he "considered" that Obama was born in Hawaii, but gives no basis for why it was considered.

I believe the fogbrain crew had an involvement in this. I believe I had read that they were sending information to the Judge's staff, and one or more of them are known to be attorneys in the Area, so I have no doubt they mounted a back door defense for Obama and steered the judge towards their compiled "evidence."

I would hope the plaintiffs can explain this to the SoS. He could deny the conclusions of the ALJ if he feels it wasn't given a fair shake.

Had the ALJ given him cover, I think the Secretary of state would have supported a decision to keep Obama off the ballot. Since the ALJ didn't, it will be the SOS out there all by himself. I very much doubt he will decide to endure as much bile and vitriol as will be directed at him.

He's going to decide Obama is eligible. That is my prediction.