Malihi did make an error after he issued a pre-trial Order for Defendant to prove his eligibility to Plaintiff. The appropriate adjudication, regardless of Plaintiff’s request to hear the case on the merits, was to issue a Default Judgment against Defendant for not showing and proving himself eligible to Plaintiffs.
In the Farrar case, Malihi issued a Summary Judgment for Defendant after no opposition of was offered to Plaintiff, Farrar, taking the stand and identifying himself as GA voter who objected to Ballot placement of the Defendant.
Summary Judgment in civil suits is reveiwable, de novo.
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56 - Summary judgment
(h) Appeal. An order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party shall be subject to review by appeal.
“Summary Judgment in civil suits is reviewable, de novo.”
This is false, IMO. IIUC, a summary judgment is ALWAYS a pretrial ruling on a motion which ALWAYS prevents a trial on the merits from taking place...unless overturned.
In Judge Malihi’s decision he explicitly states that there were, in effect, two separate hearings “on the merits,” one for Farrar (Taitz) on document fraud and one for all the others on the NBC issue.
Because the trial judge assessed the fact evidence from Farrar “on the merits” and found no probative value for any of the Farrar evidence and testimony, there will be NO DE NOVO appeal hearing on the Farrar facts.
Without any facts, Malihi could not make any conclusions of law that could be reviewed by an appeals court...so Farrar and Dr. Taitz have Zero issues on appeal other than to assert gross error, but due to Dr. Taitz poor lawyering that will not happen, IMO. Only the NBC conclusion of law based on Ankeny can be appealed, IMO.