Replies

“Plaintiff David Farrar took the witness stand and stated he was a Georgia registered voter and objected to Obama being placed on the ballot due to publicly available information on Obama’s birth location.”

In Malihi’s decision he stated that by demanding a hearing on the merits rather than accept a bland simple removal of Barry from the ballot for failing to appear, the plaintiffs, including Farrar, took the burden of proof of constitutional ineligibilty onto themselves.

At the Farrar (Taitz) hearing on the merits, Malihi’s decision was that NONE of the witnesses were properly established as experts and none of their testimony was “probative.” The evidence could have been probative if the foundation of the expertise of the witnesses had been properly laid and if the same evidence had been properly “proved up” as lawyers say. This should have been a walk in the park with no opposing counsel jumping up and objecting, but Dr. Taitz has not been able to master this skill in any hearing before any judge to date.

The result is that NONE of the Farrar hearing testimony and evidence were incorporated into Malihi’s findings of fact.

All that Malihi ruled in his decision was his own “consideration” that Barry's mom was a US citizen, his father was not and Barry was born in HI. Malihi’s conclusion of law was that given those found facts, Barry was NBC under the Ankeny consideration of WKA and the 14A “in Tandem” resulting in a conclusion that Barry was NBC.

The good news is that this can go up to SCOTUS on appeal.

Malihi did not say which specific bits of testimony and evidence from Hatfield and Irion supported his decision that resulted from his “consideration.”

Court precedent indicates a candidate for office in the State of Georgia MUST prove eligibility when a Georgia registered voter complains to the GA SoS the candidate is not eligible to be on the ballot.

See O'Brien v Gross OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-0829726-60-MALIHI, at 12 (2008) "The burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office" citing Haynes v Wells, 538 S.E.2d 430 (GA 2000) establishes that a candidate seeking to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their eligibility.

O'Brien v Gross was a Malihi ruling. Malihi is ignoring his own precedent to ensure Obama does not have to testify under oath.