Hopefully there will be more than just Georgia.
I thought this could have been the case here since Obama and his lawyer who arrogantly boycotted the hearing. One of the lawyers, I think Hatfield, brought up sanctions could be leveled by the court against Obama and his lawyer.
Please, please let this be true!
“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.”
As a litigator, this “Move along, counsel” response from the judge tells me Taitz is a pain in the a$$ in the courtroom, disorganized and attention-seeking. Probably added nothing to the judge’s eventual opinion.
I suspect the most a default judgement will do (effectively) is move the case to a new court that’s more amenable to Obama.
I wonder if anyone knows if the SPLC video crew showed up.
I did not hear anything that sounded racist to me (thought it was to me inaudible at times).
The people are 100 percent correct, and the people have every intention of showing those who continue to obfuscate this extremely serious constitutional crisis the door.
Nice compilation there.
I was queried earlier today about a reply of mine...
hunky-dory?
We're all racists for questioning The Won and the deniers want to "show us the door" (get us who question out of the way) so...honky-doory.
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.
He can say that the Court documents were not served correctly. He would have to show that the documents were not served, which obviously would explain why the Court had no ability to enter judgment. This has to be done by way of an ‘Application on Notice’ (motion). Evidence has to be shown to the procedural judge.
He could also try to show that there is some good reason why judgment in default should be set aside. This covers any situation, but is commonly used when service was done properly by Court rule, but still did not come to the attention of the Organizer in Chief (perhaps he was on a long vacation in Hawaii, or campaigning, or playing golf)
Obama could also offer a meritorious defense before the Court sets aside the default judgment.
Again, he would say the Court entered judgment when they were not entitled so to and perhaps it was lost in the mail or by the court, or similar reason, but the Court still attempts to enter judgment. The court staff usually check for things like this, but occasionally things slip through the system.
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?
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?
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
Thanks, Red Steel. This is interesting.
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