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

[FreedomPoster]

The AJC is lying in order to present a prejudicial narrative to the populace. It is what they do.

[GregNH]

And if Orly didn’t get all the other crap out there there would have been one question and one question only! Then the AJC would only have one question to report on.....

[Texas Fossil]

I would agree with you that Orly needed only to submit that he could not be a NBC because his stated parents were not both U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth (or ever).

[Texas Fossil]

BTT!

[CodeToad]

Thanks, Red Steel. This is interesting.

[fireman15]

I still appreciate that Ms. Taitz did finally manage to get the doubts about Obama’s birth documentation and SS# into the official record.

[GregNH]

I am sure that is correct. There was default decision. There was trial so evidence was exchanged between plaintiff and defendant. So I don’t see anything as being “on the record” so to speak. keep in mind that was an administrative hearing and the this “court” is a function of the executive branch and not the judicial branch of GA government.

[GregNH]

Sorry for the typo but it should read “I am NOT sure that is correct”

[GregNH]

Wow, I am so tired. Very sorry about the exclusions in my post. I am just about dead and heading to bed, There was default decision. There was no trial so evidence was exchanged between plaintiff and defendant. So I don’t see anything as being “on the record” so to speak. keep in mind that was an administrative hearing and this “court” is a function of the executive branch and not the judicial branch of the GA government.

[fireman15]

I am sure that you are trying to make a valid point, however this was a public hearing, there was a court reporter, witnesses, attorneys, and a judge. This was recorded... so by definition it is most definitely “in the record”. A ruling will be made by the judge. When it is “appealed” everything that was recorded today will have to be considered by the judge, or panel of judges who make a further decision. Of course they may choose to disregard everything that was presented today, but all of the “evidence presented” is still in the record and he, she or they are suppose to address what was presented today in some fashion.

I hate to quibble over small points. This sounds like a Clintonean debate on the meaning of the word “is”. On appeal judges have a long history of ruling however they want and making judgments that are often based on “evidence” never presented in trial. So it is certainly not over, but to me it looks like the impenetrable fortress built by Obama's team of lawyers is showing a few cracks.

[GregNH]

There will be no appeal. An executive decision is not subject to judicial review. The administrative “court” is an executive function not a judicial function. The SoS’s affirmation of the administrations initial decision is an executive decision. This is not a judicial matter.

[fireman15]

“There will be no appeal. An executive decision is not subject to judicial review.”

I think that I understand the point that you are trying to make. However, I think that you partially mistaken or splitting hairs. I believe the administrative court’s ruling and the Georgia’s Attorney General’s response to it can be contested in Superior Court or possibly a Federal Court depending on the arguments although technically this action would not be considered an “appeal” per se. Since the goal of Obama’s team of lawyers has thus far been to keep these questions out of the court system you may be correct that there will be no “appeal”.

[philman_36]

Video of Carl Swensson with Pastor Manning.
The Birther's Victory In Atlanta Court

[Kenny Bunk]

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.

Absolutely correct. The Secretary of State in any state has the power to remove a candidate from a ballot pending production of that candidate's bona fides. Said candidate can either satisfy the SOS by presenting evidence directly to him, or by suing the SOS (the state) to be placed on the ballot, presenting the evidence of qualification in court.

What the Georgia SOS needs now is nerve; courage; cojones. Just take the the illegitimate SOB off and be done with it. Make him sue. Make the courts tell us what a "Natural Born Citizen" is. As huntin' and shootin' Americans we have the God-given right to know whether or not we are crazy, or whether Obama is illegitimately in office.

That is the job of the courts. In the meantime, the SOS doesn't need a court to take the SOB off the ballot, so take him off and let's go hunting.

SSay, I hate to be a PITA, but does anyone have a PLAN, A PROGRAM, A LEADER to implement them, and THE ABILITY to communicate that to me, about how we are going to save the country, which is heading for a big rock faster than an Italian Ocean Liner?

[Lloyd227]

From what I'm reading... this case may be a little different from what we have expected.

The judge is an administrative law judge and apparently he issues not a ruling in this type of case, but a "recommendation" and then, the final decision as to whether Obama's name appears on the ballot rests with the Secretary of State.

The judge does not issue any true ruling that is binding on anybody and it's the Secretary of State who is subject to the political pressure involved regardless of what the judge does recommend.

Further, the failure to appear does not automatically result in a default judgement, the judge can still rule on "the facts" as he sees them, not necessarily default to ruling in the plaintiff's favor because the defendant failed to appear.

I am suspecting this one also will be swept aside without a true ruling on the merits of the case. But I hope I'm wrong