Replies

From my post:
“Nonappearance by the defense is based, of course, on the assertion that because the SOS lacks statutory authority to determine the candidate’s eligibility, the hearing officer lacked subject matter jurisdiction - suggesting the defense thought the hearing was a kangaroo court.”

Your response:
“Au contraire. Nonappearance by the candidate and his counsel is based, of course, on the fact that they have no legal documents from Hawaii indicating that a Barack Hussein Obama II was born on August 4, 1961. Further, none of these participants wanted to enter false testimony into the hearing as evidence...so easy even a caveman could understand it.

Other states sure to follow...bye bye Bari.”

********

What you say is most likely true, Mike, but it goes to a separate level in the analysis. We agree, the defense must avoid any forum that deals with birth document exhibits. The larger question is how does it avoid such a forum?

To accomplish this in GA, defense relies on GA case law and GA statutes that - it contends - support its assertion the SOS does not have the statutory authority to determine, by reference to eligibility, who shall or shall not appear on GA’s ballot.

If defense is confident of its legal argument, it will go to court if denied ballot access. If so, and the SOS does not have an argument that overcomes defense’s legal argument, O should be on the GA ballot. You and I may not like it, but that will be the result if SOS does not have authority (see NH).

We may have to hope one or more other state has provided its SOS’s with sufficient authority and has the political will go press the issue. Or, we may have to rely on the January, 2013 Joint Session of Congress for resolution of this national scam. The scam, at a minimum, is the ongoing nondisclosure and non-investigation of a high public official’s eligibility.

(Since we are on the same team, how about dropping the “caveman” crap.)