Whew! We're in trouble now!
Posted on 02/07/2012 11:38:23 AM PST by Red Steel
Kind of hard to do that if you're not in court, isn't it.
I would be concerned if I were Jablonski.
However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to "back door" into the record two (2) electronic images of Defendant Obama's purported "long form" and "short form" birth certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial.
Do you really think the judge's mind works like yours? Either the birth certificate is valid or it is not. And when on top of it, Welden’s attorney stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii then you get the verdict you got.
Are the rules of evidence the same for a hearing as they are for a trial?
You seem to have this image of judges going out to seek only the “purest” sources. I take it you have no practical experience with the judicial system. Judges are busy people - they are not going create work for themselves.
If the BC was a forgery as many maintain, then it was not possible to prove that Obama’s father was born in Kenya, correct?
The Founders did not capitalize non-proper nouns.
The court didn't see any genuine birf certificate from Obama. and the plaintiffs for Hatfield and Taitz did not stipulate it was Fogbutt. Only a corrupt or stupid judge would accept the crap from Obama on the Internet.
Attorney Hatfield states,
"Defense counsel, in fact, never objected to the Notice to Produce and never moved to quash same. He simply, and purposefully, ignored it.
However, as you are also aware, Mr. Jablonski did attempt to "back door" into the record two (2) electronic images of Defendant Obama's purported "long form" and "short form" birth certificates by attaching same to a letter addressed and emailed to you on January 25, 2012, the day before the trial, essentially informing you that he and his client would not appear for trial."
What?? We see a dishonest OBot Jablonski submitted bull crap through the backdoor.
And more from Hatfield Foggyhead.
"A third significant flaw in Judge Malihi's "Decision" is that he completely failed to make a determination as to the proper placement of the burden of proof, and he failed to apply the burden of proof to his factual and legal conclusions. On January 19, 2012, Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell filed a "Motion For Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof" in which Plaintiffs sought an order of the Court, pursuant to Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108-109, 538 S.E. 2d 430, 433 (2000), requiring Defendant Obama to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office. Not only did Judge Malihi not rule on Plaintiffs' motion in advance of trial, as was requested by Plaintiffs, but the judge never even addressed or resolved the motion in his final ruling. I do note, however, that the judge did indicate, in an in-chambers meeting at trial with all of the attorneys for the various Plaintiffs, that Defendant Obama probably carried the burden of proof in these proceedings.
The significance of the Court's failure to rule on the burden of proof is immediately apparent. The Defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional, as shown by defense counsel's letter of January 25, 2012."
The judge failed in so many areas that the only logical conclusion is that he is corrupt just like the turds who lurk and sleaze at theFogbow.com
Georgia Administrative Procedure Act (Title 50) applies to administrative hearings:
2006 Georgia Code - 50-13-15
50-13-15. In contested cases:
(1) Irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. The rules of evidence as applied in the trial of civil nonjury cases in the superior courts shall be followed. When necessary to ascertain facts not reasonably susceptible of proof under such rules, evidence not admissible thereunder may be admitted, except where precluded by statute, if it is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs or if it consists of a report of medical, psychiatric, or psychological evaluation of a type routinely submitted to and relied upon by an agency in the normal course of its business. Agencies shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law. Objections to evidentiary offers may be made and shall be noted in the record. Subject to these requirements, when a hearing will be expedited and the interest of the parties will not be prejudiced substantially, any part of the evidence may be received in written form;
(2) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts if the original is not readily available. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original or have it established as documentary evidence according to the rules of evidence applicable to the superior courts of this state;
(3) A party may conduct such cross-examination as shall be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts;
(4) Official notice may be taken of judicially cognizable facts. In addition, official notice may be taken of generally recognized technical or scientific facts within the agency´s specialized knowledge. Parties shall be notified either before or during the hearing, by reference in preliminary reports or otherwise, of the material noticed, including any staff memoranda or data, and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the material so noticed. The agency´s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may be utilized in the evaluation of the evidence; and
(5) Any hearing which is required or permitted hereunder may be conducted by utilizing remote telephonic communications if the record reflects that all parties have consented to the conduct of the hearing by use of such communications and that such procedure will not jeopardize the rights of any party to the hearing.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2006/50/50-13.html
Oh geeze, you've got to be the dumbest Commie Foggydumb in existence. "Purest sources" What? The 'judge was tooooo busy" to get into evidence a certified birth certificate from Hawaii but the idiot will accept some bullcrap picture on the Internet.
"And more from Hatfield Foggyhead.
"A third significant flaw in Judge Malihi's "Decision" is that he completely failed to make a determination as to the proper placement of the burden of proof, and he failed to apply the burden of proof to his factual and legal conclusions. On January 19, 2012, Plaintiffs Swensson and Powell filed a "Motion For Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof" in which Plaintiffs sought an order of the Court, pursuant to Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 108-109, 538 S.E. 2d 430, 433 (2000), requiring Defendant Obama to affirmatively establish his eligibility for office. Not only did Judge Malihi not rule on Plaintiffs' motion in advance of trial, as was requested by Plaintiffs, but the judge never even addressed or resolved the motion in his final ruling. I do note, however, that the judge did indicate, in an in-chambers meeting at trial with all of the attorneys for the various Plaintiffs, that Defendant Obama probably carried the burden of proof in these proceedings.
The significance of the Court's failure to rule on the burden of proof is immediately apparent. The Defendant and his lawyer failed to attend trial and failed to offer any evidence, and such failures were intentional, as shown by defense counsel's letter of January 25, 2012."
Poor you, you’re looking up stuff for the past while I’m looking up stuff for the future.
These two clowns 4Dolt and Harlot are Dr. CON and Commie FogBlower posters.
You are not suggesting that Welden’s lawyer committed a felony by submitting a forged document into evidence, are you?
If it is good enough for the plaintiff then it is good enough. It was their challenge, it was their case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.