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.
“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.”
The plaintiffs had a default judgment to remove Barry from the ballot in hand due to Barry's failure to appear and “establish affirmatively his eligibility.” That default order would have fulfilled the precedent that Malihi’s prior ruling set.
ALL of the Plaintiff's declined to accept the default removal, so that Malihi court precedent did not apply to any of the three hearings after that moment.
IIUC, there cannot be BOTH a default pre-trial ruling and a trial on the merits. All plaintiffs declined the default ruling and agreed to take the burden of proof onto themselves as a necessary condition of having Malihi go ahead with a trial on the merits.
It would have been impossible for a trial on the merits to go forward with the burden of proof remaining on Jablonski when he wasn't there. That would have been a kangaroo court!