Sven just posted this elsewhere, I hope someone explains the import and I find the comment, I assume it means all the evidence/testimony shown in the GA case will have to be done all over again, by which ever lawyers show up?
“It is the understanding of the first two attorneys to present their cases that, whichever way the judge decides will ultimately result in an appeal, and with their evidence being presented, they have prepared their cases to proceed to the highest court in the land, if necessary.”
No!
An appeal will be to Georgia Superior Court and it will be de novo (fresh start, new case). Evidence and testimony will have to be introduced, again.
The Administrative Hearing is a function of the Georgia legislative branch. Georgia Superior Court is a function of the Georgia Judicial branch. Obama and his attorney know this and are not worried about a default judgement which will result in the GA SoS taking Obama off the Georgia Preferential Ballot. They’ll appeal the GA SoS’s action and new trial will be held in Georgia Superior Court, de novo.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2840204/posts#30
Sven; Judge Malihi offers an advisory opinion to the GA SoS. If an adverse decision is made against Obama by the GA SoS, then he can appeal the GA SoS decision to Georgia Superior Court. The case will be de novo, or a fresh start, because GA SoS will only have access to Judge Malihi’s opinion and not a trial transcript and evidence presented.
Obama can submit his certified COLB as proof and the Georgia Superior Court may accept it as proof he’s qualified to be on the ballot. It really depends on how aggressive the GA AAG defends the GA SoS decision. Will the GA AAG present MvH dicta as precedent? What about WKA? How does Schneider v Rusk (quoting Osborn) fit into the eligibility question?
Greg To Sven;Wrong!On this thread the "appeal" process is described in GA law.
[snip]On review, the reviewing agency shall consider the whole record or such portions of it as may be cited by the parties. In reviewing initial decisions by the Office of State Administrative Hearings, the reviewing agency shall give due regard to the administrative law judge’s opportunity to observe witnesses. If the reviewing agency rejects or modifies a proposed finding of fact or a proposed decision, it shall give reasons for doing so in writing in the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Sven To Greg;
You’re dreaming. The only acceptable conclusion is a default Order. Otherwise, you have parties arguing their cases without objection or cross examination.
Here are the rules on default:
OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CHAPTER 616-1-2
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF PROCEDURE
616-1-2-.30 Default. Amended.
(1) A default order may be entered against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding, a party that fails to file any required pleading, or a party that fails to comply with an order issued by the Administrative Law Judge.(2) Any default order may provide for a default as to all issues, a default as to specific issues, or other limitations, including limitations on the presentation of evidence and on the defaulting party’s continued participation in the proceeding. After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as necessary to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party, or with such limited participation as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate, and shall determine all issues in the proceeding, including those affecting the party in default.
My original response to the default order was "A default order was averted"
But lets look at the above.
(1) A default order may be entered
(2)After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as necessary to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party,
So no matter how you look it, evidence was presented and will be considered at the hearing level as well as at the SoS, and if appealed at the SC level. You have offered nothing to back up your claims and in fact you have argued against your own comments.
Just curious, but other than Sven, where does it say that an appeal will be “de novo”?? The general idea of the appeal is based on reviewing a court’s rulings and the arguments made therein.