Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 01/27/2012 7:33:35 PM PST by RobinMasters
Attorneys who argued in a Georgia court this week that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president say Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi considered granting a default judgment before they even argued the case.
That presumably could have recommended that Obama failed to prove his eligibility and therefore should not be on the 2012 ballot, since he and his lawyer snubbed the hearing, for which Obama was subpoenaed.
But the attorneys argued against such an easy victory on the point of the single hearing, expressing instead their desire to get the evidence concerning Obama’s eligibility or lack of it in the record, so that it would be there should the case elevate to an appellate level.
The attorneys also said the strategy decision by Obama to simply ignore the subpoena and the hearing may ultimately backfire, because judges typically aren’t pleased to listen to arguments from someone who wants to introduce evidence during an appeal.
Both attorneys, J. Mark Hatfield and Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation told WND they felt comfortable discussing the situation as the judge had imposed no ban on communicating what happened.
“The judge … was considering just entering a default judgment against Obama,” Hatfield said today. “The plaintiffs’ attorneys uniformly did not want the judge to do that because there wouldn’t be any evidence in the record at all.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
We live in hidtorical times
If they choose to have an election they are bound by innumerable laws and decisions...almost all of which are Federal.
However, a state can ALSO determine how a candidate gets on the ballot. A perfect example of this is the Virginia Primary qualification in which a candidate must obtain a minimum number of signature AND a minimum number from every county in the state.
Now, while the US Constitution has only two requirements for POTUS...Natural Born Citizen...and 35 Years of age...I am CONFIDENT the USSC would uphold Georgia's refusal to put ANYONE on the ballot until/unless they sign a release form for the State to obtain a Certified Copy, under threat of law, directly from the jurisdiction of birth.
This to verify the only two requirements to be POTUS.
Even one state would expose the Fraud.
Very hidtorical.
Lord, give the Judge and the SOS the courage to do the right thing and keep this miserable spawn of hate off the Georgia Ballot.
Section 1.......
5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There are 3 requirements:
1. Natural born citizen.
2. 35 years of age.
3. 14 years a resident.
My bad.
After I hit post and saw that, I figured ... naaahhh .. let it stand .. sort’a makes a lot more sense.
No kidding. Huge and series.
No, in his case the 3rd is not relevant. But the 1st is.
Obama is not getting any of the GA electors in the fall, regardless of who he is running against. So I guess it doesn’t really matter if he is on the ballot or not.
I”d love to see the judge do it. Wonder if the media would even cover it? Or they would declare the judge racist.
Judge Malihi shortened the time to file any post trial trial pleadings. He moved the date from February 5th to February 1. He will issue his ruling shortly thereafter. I believe, he will issue his ruling by the end of the day on February 1 or on February 2 at the latest. I believe Brian Kemp, the Secretary of State of GA, will announce on February 2 or 3rd whether Barack Hussein Obama’s name will be allowed on the ballot in the state of GA as an eligible Presidential candidate.
I honestly think it does matter whether or not he is on the ballot. If he is kept from the ballot because he did not provide proof of eligibility then this could open the floodgates for citizens of all the other 49 States to file similar lawsuits. I would love to see Obama have to prove in all the other states that he is eligible to run. There is so much to wonder about here. If for example, he, or his lawyers or supporters try to get his “birth certificate” entered into evidence and there are experts who can consistently prove that it is forged, why should ANY Judge rule that a forged birth certificate constitutes lawful proof of eligibility?
I know, you just “hid” to say that!
‘Jurisdiction of birth’? This could very interesting in Obama’s situation as there is a bit of controversy as to his place of birth. Granted that Obama might have a truly valid birth certificate cached in Hawaii there might still be questions about Hawaii allowing birth reports to be filed on anyone within a year of birth. Hawaii must be the most rogue state to have ever been admitted into the Union.
Although Obama would not get the electoral votes anyway, there would be an uproar within the state from people outraged that they were prevented from the opportunity to vote for him if he were not on the ballot. That would be worthy of coverage in itself.
Barry’s inferred, future claim that the judge is racist would be equivalent of a union boss placing his hat on an opposing demonstrator at a protest venue. The mob of “Barry’s and Holder’s people” would descend upon every aspect the judge’s life.
Apuzzo’s comment about—once filed—the hearing’s transcript being available to SCOTUS for their consideration in any pending case was interesting. I think it could possibly stiffen a justice’s spine toward their willingness to pick up an Obama case.
If five justices were clearly in favor of a finding of ineligibility, I think the others might well fall into line, such that their future-perceived impartiality would be enhanced, and they find cover from being on the wrong side of history in such a case where some people’s deaths will surely be in play.
HF
I am confused. This article says that the judge WILL NOT enter a default judgement - that the Orly and the others refused a default judgement in order to present their evidence.
Did I miss something along the way - I was hoping and praying it was a done deal.
The 3 individual attorneys/plaintiffs asked the judge for sufficient time in the Court to present their evidence, otherwise the judge was going to make short work and declare a default judgment. The default judgment is a recommendation the judge can make (and likely will) to the Ga., SOS.
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.