In your original response you referred to “that court” to indicate Judge Malihi was seperate and distinct from the GA Supreme Court. You do not understand there is one judiciary in GA and all Courts accept the decision of the lower Court as a decision made by the entire judiciary, unless an appeal is successfully launched and the lower Court’s decision is overturned.
Conversely, a decision by the GA Supreme Court is precedent for the entire judiciary. Haynes v. Wells is precedent set by a GA Supreme Court decision where the burden of proof is upon the candidate to proof eligiblilty after a candidate attests they are eligible for the office and is successfully challenged by an elector.
When Orly Taitz waived Judge Malihi’s offer of default judgment against defendant Obama for his failure to appear, she waived the Haynes v. Wells precedent for a challenged candidate to prove their eligibility. You’re attempting to protect Obama from the disgrace of not showing up to defend his eligibility when he was ordered to do so.
I know you won’t admit it. You’ll never admit Obama is ineligible because you’re delicate physce can’t handle the truth.
Ummm, no, this is some tangent you've invented.
You do not understand there is one judiciary in GA and all Courts accept the decision of the lower Court as a decision made by the entire judiciary, unless an appeal is successfully launched and the lower Court’s decision is overturned.
You're missing a step. Malihi is an administrative judge whose ruling serves as an advisory opinion to the secretary of state who is free to either accept or reject that opinion.
Conversely, a decision by the GA Supreme Court is precedent for the entire judiciary. Haynes v. Wells is precedent set by a GA Supreme Court decision where the burden of proof is upon the candidate to proof eligiblilty after a candidate attests they are eligible for the office and is successfully challenged by an elector.
This idea of precedent only means something if you can show how it was actually applied by Malihi in the ballot challenge against Obama. The only thing you've shown is Orly Taitz citing a burden of proof AFTER Malihi gave his decision.
When Orly Taitz waived Judge Malihi’s offer of default judgment against defendant Obama for his failure to appear, she waived the Haynes v. Wells precedent for a challenged candidate to prove their eligibility.
Then you're arguing against yourself because this means the court did not require a burden of proof on the president. Thanks for admitting it.
You’re attempting to protect Obama from the disgrace of not showing up to defend his eligibility when he was ordered to do so.
Nothing I've posted protects Obama from any alleged "disgrace." And yes, he was advised to show up and present evidence, but he was not ordered to be there.
I know you won’t admit it. You’ll never admit Obama is ineligible because you’re delicate physce can’t handle the truth.
Wow, this statement is completely ignorant. You need to read my posts because I've helped show several times how Obama is not and cannot be Constitutionally eligible for office. What I'm not going to do is make an ignorant statement that the ballot challenge in Georgia put the burden of proof on Obama when it clearly did not. Why are you trying to argue that they did??