Posted on 01/26/2012 11:41:26 AM PST by justlurking
I just got off the phone with Dean Haskins who was in the courtroom this morning assisting with the Art 2Pac live stream. Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama's name not be on the Georgia ballot! All of the attorneys expressed a desire to put an abbreviated streamlined case on the record and the judge agreed.
How does the mainstream media spin this?
The Georgia SOS has already indicated that he will follow the judge's recommendation. That means that Obama will not get any popular vote or electors from the great state of Georgia!
Congratulations to all freedom-loving Americans!
Yes, of course. I was thinking of this differently because BO is not going through the primary process. In my best Emily Litella voice, "never mind."
No it doesn't. it just means that Obama's name won't be on the ballot.
In November, we will vote for electors, party electors. In essence, we will choose which political party will be allowed to cast an electoral ballot in Congress. You and I vote for electors. The candidate's name appears on our ballots as a convenience to the political party. But you and I do not vote directly for the candidate, we vote for a party elector. Read the ballot carefully, you'll see.
The absence of the candidate's name does not prevent the elector from voting for Obama.
congrats !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Obama wasn’t going to get any electors from Georgia, anyway.
What will be interesting is if we can get some swing states to follow suit.
What’s 0bama afraid of—hmmm?
Forgo getting on a ballot just to not show his BC.
He’ll make up those votes somehow. He’s not worried. ACORN to the rescue.
Something has changed. You can smell it. Georgia has been attacked for its immigration policies. Now it appears the powers in Georgia are counter attacking by forcing the president to defend his position in an election year. Something has changed.
In some states, if there is only one candidate who files and qualifies to be in a party’s primary, no primary election is held.
This is actually HORRIBLE news!
Under the Georgia statute, it is the candidates responsability to show that they are eligible. And it’s the judges job to determine if the candidate has done so. So, since the judge is entering a default judgement, all he needs to say in his ruling is - “the candidate did not appear to show he is eligible for the office he is running for, therefore it is the courts opinion that he not be placed on the ballot”.
This means that the evidence presented at the hearing was for show only! The judge is not going to rule on Minor v Happersett being precedent on the definition of ‘natural born citizen’.
The SOS may, or may not put Obama on the ballot, but there will be nothing coming from this hearing that will be usefull in removing Obama from any other state ballot.
You have the entire truth contained in your post. How long till the assassination of this judge?
The Kenyan is going to face some real issues this time around, and Orly Taitz isn't going to be the only one carrying the banner.
AZ was attacked as well and Gov. Brewer pimp slapped obama yesterday when he came to our great state.
If everyone kept off the primary are also banned from the ballots for the general, we will have a problem in VA, since Newt wasn’t allowed on the primary ballot.
I hope his deems Obama I eligible for both.
The MSM has again proven their incompetence by failing to report on an extremely significant court case today. It’s all over the internet but not a peep from the major news networks.
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW
By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138
Holder is working on this right now.
Bravo Georgia ! ! !
I’m not so sure. In my experience, there are many scenarios when a party might be entitled to a default judgment, but the court may either require or permit the prevailing party to conduct a “proof hearing” to establish the precise basis for what should be included in the judgment. This is mostly done in monetary cases, where the defendant’s default is not sufficient alone to establish how much the defendant actually owes. But there are other scenarios where a proof hearing can take place in order to establish the exact nature of the relief that are provided by the judgment.
The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there.Appearently, the judge only begrudgingly listened to any evidence.
So when Obama gets off the plane at a Georgia Airport, who does he direct his thin, un-naturalized skin attacks toward?
I see your point, but I ask you this: if the judge was determined to enter a default judgment that just says “Obama shall not be on the ballot”, why did he allow the plaintiffs to proceed with proofs of Obama’s eligibility? If it will have no effect on the resulting judgment, why would he waste the time? He just seemed like a really no-nonsense guy and not likely to just indulge the plaintiffs only to throw the transcript and the exhibits in the trash. We shall see, we shall see...Let us pray that there is some hope for those of us who have been agonizing over this travesty of a president.
My estimation is that it is either 50% reliable true, or 100% sorta reliable true.
We will have to wait and see.
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.