Update: Obama's GA Ballot...: Judge Wanted To Immediately Enter Default Judgment Against Obama

Obama Release Your Records ^ | January 26, 2012 | Dean Haskins

[Red Steel]

Update: Obama's Georgia Ballot Hearing: Judge Wanted To 

Immediately Enter Default Judgment Against Obama

Dean Haskins on the Scene at Hearing

As we are trying to get a quick lunch, and then do some interviews, this is just a very brief synopsis of what happened today. Before the hearing started, the judge called the attorneys into his chambers and explained that he was going to enter a default judgment in their favor. Attorneys Hatfield and Irion requested to be able to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record. At that point, Irion estimated he would need 20 minutes, Hatfield estimated he would need 30 minutes, and Taitz estimated she would need 2 hours.

Van Irion and Mark Hatfield made their arguments, and left. Taitz then presented her argument, calling several witnesses, until the judge asked her to make her closing statement. As her closing statement began, the judge asked if she was testifying, and, in an unconventional move, Taitz took the witness stand to testify. The judge finally asked her just to make her closing statement, which she did.

We believe that the default judgment automatically translates into the judge's recommendation to the Sec. Of State being that Obama should not appear on the ballot in Georgia.

Back to work . . . more to come!

You can also find a blow by blow account of today's hearing in Georgia here: http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138

Article II Super PAC reports they will post an archive of today's hearing soon as it is available: http://www.art2superpac.com

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

[PA-RIVER]

Awesome.

The Georgia legal system now has sworn testimony that a federal employee is committing SS fraud. Accusations of a felony have been put on record.

[devattel]

You are correct. The legal term here is:

Excusable Neglect

Here is an example of statutes in California. They are similar all across the nation:

Excusable Neglect (CCP 473(b)):
To be excusable, the neglect must have been the act or omission of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.Forgetting about the lawsuit, being too busy to properly respond, or being unable to afford an attorney are not grounds for excusable neglect. Examples of excusable neglect include:

• Illness that disables the party from responding or appearing in court
• Failure to respond because you relied on your attorney to do so
• Failure to appear at trial because you relied on misinformation provided by a court officer

Mr. Obama and his attorneys will not be able to seek relief from this default judgment. This is a classic admission of guilt, and I doubt any appeals court in the nation will ever overturn this decision.

[JoeA]

Amen to that!

[JoeA]

Amen to that!

[Dante3]

Ditto.

[devattel]

We seem to be getting conflicting deliberation dates in our information. I read elsewhere that the judge is going to decide this case on February 5. We are reading here that the judge wants to deliberate immediately.

If February is the case, how does this coincide with Sheriff Arpaio’s release of his posse’s findings on their Obama investigation? Has anyone heard anything with regards to this effort?

[Red Steel]

I also read that evidence could be introduced until then - the 5th, but it appears that since Obama was a deliberate no-show, that has likely changed.

[MMaschin]

Not over by a long shot. This was an administrative court. If a default is entered against Obama, he can appeal to the next higher Georgia Court, then to Appeal Court, then to State Supreme Court, then to US Supreme Court. He can also petition to have the Default set aside. ...

But why would he want to? Obama has avoided what he needed to avoid - a ruling based on the merits of the case. The only thing that can bring Obama down, is a ruling by a court of law that Minor v Happersett established precedent on the definition of natural born citizen. In this case he avoided it.

Obama will now argue that SOS Kemp does not have the authority to keep him off the ballot - you saw that argument begin in Jablonski's letter to SOS Kemp. But, Obama will never allow a court to rule on whether or not Minor is precedent on the legal definition of NBC. He can never allow that to happen.

[GregNH]

Obama: "There are still people [turn head to other side of room] like a few in Georgia [turn head back to the other side of room] who still think I was not born in Hawaii! [turn head to other side of room] Can you believe that!"

[frog in a pot]

Not over by a long shot.

Quite right.

It seems likely defense counsel cares not at all about what may result from this administrative hearing. He impolitely informed the SOS prior to the hearing that the SOS had no authority to take action based on any supposed lack of eligibility of the candidate; and implied, in essence, that the hearing was a waste of time. He backed his position with at least one Georgia case and local statutes. He could afford to be impolite because if the hearing officer indeed lacks subject matter jurisdiction, defense's barely veiled view that it was a kangaroo court has merit.

The fact the SOS allowed the hearing to proceed ought to suggest he believes the case law can be overcome and the statute cited is misapplied; that he is willing to meet head on any lawsuit the candidate brings in a court of law.

That case, of course, will be about GA statutes and not the candidate's eligibility, and that court test will be the point when we should hope the SOS really has his legal ducks lined up.

Unfortunately, it seems there is a path to victory for the candidate in GA; and, if so, they will certainly pursue it.

[Texas Fossil]

I suspect the most a default judgement will do (effectively) is move the case to a new court that’s more amenable to Obama.

This appears to be an issue of law in the State of Georgia. It is a place on a Georgia Ballot that is being discussed. The SOS of Georgia made a very strong statement concerning this yesterday.

Obozo's personal attorney is in a very bad position. On merit of the case there is no defensive position concerning Obama's records. He cannot produce the records he is asked by the court to produce. They either do not actually exist or they reveal something so grave as to be just as damaging. He could try and lie and bluff his way through the court and run the risk of disbarment for his actions. Or he can accept contempt of court and not appear. Bad options in an apparently hostile court.

[GregNH]

No ruling in ‘birther' challenge

Atlanta Journal Constitution

[Rashputin]

Ok, I need some clarification here and maybe someone can help me out. At one time Georgia and a number of other states had to get any changes to their voting laws, any redistricting, and any other things that made a significant impact on voters ruled on by the Federal Court because of the Voting Right Act and associated BS. Is Georgia no longer one of those states where in reality the Federal Courts have the final say on any and all of their election laws and regulations?

If the SoS accepts a default judgment that Barry isn't qualified to be on the ballot, is that something that will immediately be kicked into a Federal Court because such an event falls under Voting Rights Act related things Georgia can no longer do without Federal approval?

[CarsonChris]

From what I’ve been informed. If the Secretary of State of Georgia denies Obama’s name on the ballot then Obama has to sue the Secretary of State and win in court to get his name on the ballot.

[Texas Fossil]

The reporter is incorrect.

This has nothing to do with Obama being a citizen, but everything to do with Obama not being a “natural born” U.S. Citizen as is required by the Constitution.

This is NOT a BIRTHER issue. It has nothing to do with his birth place, although that has not be properly established. He did present a “COLB” but any honest evaluation of what he presented yield the result that it is a forgery. It is NOT a simple scan of an existing document. It is made up of at least 9 seperate images with different pixel sizes and a varied character set on individual lines.

The press is still trying to suppress the fact that there is a serious issue with Obozo’s birth story and documents.

His entire history is clearly conjured. The pieces simply do not fit and the document trail is not there.

[Texas Fossil]

And forgot to mention, the video was clearly made before the GA SOS made his statement yesterday.

The reporter probably knows the truth, but will not admit it.

[opentalk]

Older Thread regarding AZ Ballot issue and eligibility

Eye of the Obama (Arizona):

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. Thee only way this could be reversed is by Congress in majority or the states in majority undoing by Amendment the Arizona check and balance, but in that is the Catch 22 in no Amendment can undo the Articles in making a non natural born person a President of these United States. The majority could undo the Arizona check, but the majority can not negate the prime directive of the Constitution concerning Citizenship

[hoosiermama]

We have some time to get ready. Prepare for the attack.
When the decision comes out (in our favor) we must have snail mail for registered letters and email address of all fifty of the SoS and Attorney Generals. They must protect themselves and the people of their states.

Also plans need to be made for multiple release to each and every media: press,radio or visual media outlet. There was once a list of media contact emails on FR. Anyone still have it?

[ctdonath2]

or they reveal something so grave as to be just as damaging.

They do. Everybody knows it. He's not an NBC, concluded from the BC he has publicized - regardless of its legitimacy, that's what it says.

He's not going to win GA anyway. No point in expending limited resources resources in a war just to win a fight where he _will_ lose the battle.

[jersey117]

Nixon wasn’t above the law. Obama should be held to the same standard.