Posted on 01/26/2012 4:52:51 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER
Livestream of the eligbility hearing today.
Some one named Susan Daniels providing opinion now on how it went today.
How long for a decision? Any idea?
Susan Daniels summarizing. She did an investigation of Obama’s background and found discrepancies such as fraudulent SSN from CT.
I guess she is the Susan Daniels who testified to Obama’s Bogus Social Security Number
She is busy summarizing her testimony on what her private investigation found.
So many facts are missing about Obama’s life that it is very hard for these people to figure out how to explain it all.
No it doesn't -- not unless someone timely commenced an action in 2008 to keep Odumbo off the ballot. Precent requires a legal challenge and a final court decision on the merits.
No it doesn't -- not unless someone timely commenced an action in 2008 to keep Odumbo off the ballot. Precent requires a legal challenge and a final court decision on the merits.
Yes, she love the notoriety, and it does get in the way of her being a better litigator. Her witnesses did good, especially Mr. Sampson. He did very well. :-)
can that decision be appealed to a cooperative jurist or bureaucrat and thereby avoid having Obama or his lawyers ever having to present any testimony or false evidence?
She's a horrible courtroom attorney. I've hired second year law students with better skills and focus.
She should be focusing only upon the citizenship of Odumbo's parents and the impact of Odumbo's Indonesia experience and whether that resulted in a revocation of his USA citizenship. These facts are mostly undisputed. Then argue the law.
She is her own worst enemy.
Much if not all of Orly’s witness testimony might get dismissed by Mahili due to one or another legal technicality. Otherwise, however, I think Mr. Sampson is not just a credible witness as a former US immigration agent, but also his testimony may help dispel charges by the Obama camp of racism. If any legally significant outcome comes from Orly’s case, and in response, Obama were to be tempted to charge that the testimony was tainted with racism, then it could be construed as indirectly charging (it seems to me) all of the INS personnel with racism. Perhaps Mr. Sampson’s testimony would act as a deterrent to that possibility.
I don't know the specific procedure in Georgia. With that said, even under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the defense has no obligation to present any evidence unless the petitioner presents a prima facia case. This requires Oily Nuts to read the Georgia statute to determine the legal requirements to get on the ballot in Georgia and then show by a preponderance of the evidence that Obama fails to meet those standards. The best approach is to bring in an expert witness to raise doubt about the validity of Odumbo's Hawaiian BC in the hopes of convincing the judge to require the production of the original BC. Then -- and this is most important -- put in evidence concerning the citizenship of ODumbo's parents and Odumbos residency in Indonesia. Once the facts re in, present the legal argument that even if the court accepts the validity of the Hawaiian BC, as a matter of law, Odumbo is not a natural born citizen because Odumbo's father is a British subject and ODumbo gave up his US citizenship when he became a resident of Indonesia. The social security number is totally irrelevant unless Georgia law requires a valid social security number to get on the ballot.
Yeah but how many of your 2nd year law students would have the guts and the stamina to pursue a sitting president over three years and several states in multiple jurisdictions and eventually result in a historical subpoena (rhetorically speaking)?
I would give Taitz points for courage under fire of the unfriendly media and some possibly biased judges. On the positive side, Orly got the good dirt on Obama on court record which is what she set out to do. I would concede that she did not do so with good style, but I would put substance over style, especially considering the odds that seemed to be operating against her. After the sanctions a couple of years ago, I would have imagined that she would have just walked away from public view in shame, but ... with all due respect ... Orly stepped forward multiple times when no one else would, and she hung in there when almost anyone else would have long given up, with no guarantee of success and probably with significant personal and professional sacrifice. IANAL/IANALP, but in my book, that is commendable.
Yeah, the entire SSAN kerfluffle, while interesting, did not seem to advance Orly’s contentions (whatever they were, could not hear the audio well). I am acquainted with people who have SSANs from states they never lived in (not unaccompanied minor immigrants under foster care, either). So no matter what Orly’s witnesses say, I hope the judge does not follow her invitation to go down that legal rathole. Hopefully Mahili will get under the table assistance from Wood in drafting his recommendation(s).
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2012/120125/frontpage-Obama.html
An excerpt.
"...The procedures of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings require the burden of proof to be placed upon the agency, in this case the secretary of state’s office (SOS).
But, because the SOS was only involved as a matter of procedure, Hatfield was requesting that the court properly place the burden of proof to lie either with the plaintiffs (i.e., to prove the defendant ineligible) or with the defendant (i.e., to prove himself eligible).
Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states, in pertinent part, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President …”
Hatfield argued Georgia statute requires “Every candidate for federal … office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
Citing Haynes v. Wells, Hatfield said the entire burden of proof is placed upon defendant “to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office,” and stated, “Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell are not required, and should not be required, ‘to disprove anything regarding [Defendant Obama’s] eligibility to run for office …’”
Referring to Jablonski’s argument in his motion to quash in Taitz’s challenge, Hatfield said he seemed “to somehow be contending that the fact defendant Obama currently occupies the presidency is, in itself, evidence of defendant Obama’s constitutional eligibility to that office.”
“On the contrary,” wrote Hatfield, citing Malone v. Minchew, "there is [no] presumption, at least not a conclusive presumption, that a person named or appointed to an office ... was eligible and qualified to hold the office. Such qualification or eligibility depends upon facts which, when challenged and drawn in question in a proper judicial proceeding, is a judicial question to be determined by the courts."
Hatfield also argued “basic fairness” would dictate the burden of proof should rest upon the individual seeking to qualify for the office being sought, not plaintiffs being placed in a position of trying to “prove a negative.”
Considering “[a]ll of the facts and evidence that one would naturally assume would be supportive of defendant's eligibility for office are in the possession and control of the defendant. Defendant should not be permitted to 'back his way into office' by withholding testimony and evidence which are necessary to a judicial determination of whether he is actually eligible to serve,” Hatfield said placing the burden of proof with Obama will assure he will necessarily put up his case for eligibility, or else be stricken from the Georgia ballot.
These three eligibility cases are the first to address Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the office of president. "
-end snip-
Agreed...
The focus was not on the law and how what was done and is being done is contrary to that law. Instead she tried to dump everything into the record that might disparage the defendant. Not the best approach in my opinion.
Credit to her for tenacity, but no credit for lack of organization, lack of targeted testimony, lack of true expert witnesses, etc. Hire some new expert who has not been involved in or labeled a ‘birther’ and have that person study the evidence and provide their findings, their review of previous investigations and opinions etc
Anyway...it is in the judges hands now and we must pray that he can make sense of it all and judge accurately based on the letter of the law.
Good article. Thank you for sharing. Put on the popcorn this is going to get interesting to be certain.
What happens how?
Who do you think does the sound? It was a patriot who decided to donate her time, resources, and equipment so we could all see this historic event since it wasn’t televised.
That said, I could barely understand a word & hope a transcript will be posted.
Maybe we could all donate a little to the outfit that took the live stream on themselves so that next time they can get some pro help with the broadcast.
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.