Posted on 02/21/2012 11:00:52 PM PST by STARWISE
A state commission in Indiana that was asked to review whether Barack Obama is eligible to be on the states 2012 ballot has scheduled a hearing for Friday, and warned the parties to the argument that those who fail to attend may be subject to a default decision.
The notice was signed by Trent Deckard and J. Bradley King, co-directors of the Indiana Election Commission, and regards case No. 2012-176, which is a challenge to Obama brought by Karl Swihart.
The hearing is called to determine the merits of the candidate challenge pursuant to Indiana Code 3-8-1-2, the notice, addressed to Barack Obama at a Chicago address for his campaign, explains. A party who fails to attend or participate in the hearing may be held in default or have the proceeding dismissed.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Well our Sec of State here in GA held out for two new nuke plants so I hope Indiana gets something equally good for letting the POS off the hook.
I wish another attorney was representing this complaint (bless Orly’s heart).
I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not getting all wee-weed up about the potential peril to any party who fails to attend or participate in this hearing.
A default judgement gives the plaintiffs what they want - there is no need to enter any evidence at all.
What happened in Georgia is that the plaintiffs could have had a default judgement but they requested that the case be decided on the merits of their evidence and legal arguments.
The judge found both lacking.
Obama’s team made no arguments or presented no evidence - the plaintiffs failed to prove him ineligible.
Btw - the “have the proceeding dismissed.” is what happens when the plaintiffs fail to show.
I think Obama wants a state to rule against him so they can shift it into Federal Court and fight one battle instead of many.
The burden of proof is with the candidate seeking office.
The candidate seeking office told the judge and the citizens of Georgia to f&%#-off, and never showed up for the hearing.
The administrative hearings have their own rules.
Hatfield knew HE had the burden of proof - he specifically asked that the proof be shifted to Obama. The judge never granted his request.
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.
The perpetual motion machine of false hope.
you are a real piece of work, dismissal was never considered in Indiana (just like Georgia) despite saying they would
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OreNM9NDxlE
I wasn’t talking about Indiana
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.