Skip to comments.Update: Judge weighs arguments in Barack Obama ballot dispute; Orly Taitz involved
Posted on 01/26/2012 2:40:03 PM PST by devattel
ATLANTA -- A Georgia judge has heard arguments and is considering a complaint that seeks to keep President Barack Obama off the state's ballot.
Obama's local attorney Michael Jablonski boycotted Thursday's hearing in Atlanta. Plaintiff's attorneys urged Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi to hold him and the president in contempt. The judge didn't set a timeline for a ruling.
About 100 people listened to hours of arguments from the attorneys, who included state Rep. Mark Hatfield, a Waycross Republican.
The complaint contends Obama isn't a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore should not be on the state's ballot. Similar complaints have been filed in other states with no success.
(Excerpt) Read more at ledger-enquirer.com ...
Dang, it looked good right up until that point.
Don't believe this is true. This complain is not about removing Obozo for not being qualified. But about keeping him off the State Election Ballot because he is not a "natural born" U.S. Citizen as required by the Constitution. The GA SOS is charged with insuring that all candidates meet the requirements for holding the office the candidate is running for. That is within the power of the SOS.
Jablonsky boycotted the hearing... I know next to nothing about legal matters, but can’t believe boycotting a hearing would be well received by the Judge. Perhaps Benito Obamalini’s advisors felt that if the boycott’s results in a default judgment, they will simply appeal to a higher (possibly liberal) Judge?
Bring it on, Open the can of worms.
Expose the dark recesses of the Obastards past.
Judge ain’t weighing nothing...he is finding the purple lipped prince in default judgement.
First question, first debate from Newt: Your majesty, why did you not defend your ballot standing concerning the ballot issue in Ga?
Answer, ah, well, you know, ah, there were some rather extreme matters there, beyond the State control because you see, that Judge is now in jail for questioning my lineage. So, you keep asking, and you will be joining him.
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!
According to the plaintiffs, the judge informed them prior to the hearing that he would be entering a default judgement against Obama because he and counsel failed to appear.
The plaintiffs requested an expedited hearing to present their evidence for the record, and it was granted. It went pretty well, until Taitz took the floor.
At short glance this one seems a bit better article.
As a general rule, you don't want to insult the judge and the court itself by failing to show without cause. Judges frequently have egos *and* have a need to uphold the dignity and authority of the court.
But this is Obama. Sometimes it's Good to be King.
Judge pulled lawyers in to chambers and state he would give a default judgement and recogmend BhO would not be placed on the ballot. He did allow each of the three lawyers to enter their evidence for the record and allow a certain some witnesses. There are severl synopsis of the hearing posted on FR.
“”According to the plaintiffs, the judge informed them prior to the hearing that he would be entering a default judgement against Obama because he and counsel failed to appear. The plaintiffs requested an expedited hearing to present their evidence for the record, and it was granted. It went pretty well, until Taitz took the floor.””
Where do we find that or more information on what happened today - the link was pretty sparse in details....
The real issue in this is a President is not elected to these 49 United States, but Constitutionally must be elected by all 50 states, unless they have seceded from the Union as the Confederates did. Unless an event as that has taken place, the Constitution is not about Electoral Colleges or being ratified by Congress, but it is about the Union electing a President of all 50 states. Understand that any President can loose the popular vote as President Bush had, and win the electoral votes, along with numerous states, but no President can be President of these United States if he is not on the ballot or certified in all 50 states.
Scholars have missed this ultimate check and balance in the "silence of the Constitution". No state can keep any legal candidate off the ballot, but a state can keep anyone off the ballot who does not provide legal documentation they are qualified to be President.
That is the Constitution at it's core in the Articles concerning the Presidency. 49 states can state a fraud can be President in their super majority, but if one state demands proof and the candidate does not provide that legal proof, the one state in checks and balances can negate a national Presidential Election.
There is no court nor Supreme Court which can undo this
Do you possibly have a link for this language?
I wouldnt want to be riding the MARTA the day that ruling comes down.
Long thread here:
See post #812 for a report on what happened.
The judge has issued a default judgement after allowing the lawyers and witnesses to speak so that everything is officially on record. The Georgia SOS has already stated he would abide by the judge’s ruling. I know Tenn and Az have similar court complaints pending. Wouldn’t it be sweet if this would snowball into a great many states tossing his stupid, illegal azz off the ballot. Here is an interesting link.
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.