Appeal Filed: Case No. 2012CV211398 DAVID FARRAR VS. BARACK OBAMA

SUPERIOR COURT, Fulton Co. Ga. ^ | 2/13/2012

[Elderberry]

________________________________________ In the SUPERIOR COURT Fulton County, Georgia Case No. 2012CV211398

DAVID FARRAR, LEAH LAX, CODY ROBERT JUDY, LAURIE ROTH VS. BARACK OBAMA, SECRETARY OF STATE

Filed on 02/13/2012

Case Type: APPEAL

Judge: Cynthia D. Wright

Current Status: Filed

Defendant

Defendant Attorneys

Obama, Barack

Secretary Of State

Plaintiff

Plaintiff Attorneys

Farrar, David 2059 CAVESPRINGS ROAD CEDARTOWN, GA 30125 Pro Se Taitz, Orly 29839 SANTA MARGARITA PARKWAY SUITE 100 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688

Events and Orders of the Court

02/13/2012 MOTION

02/13/2012 CASE INITIATION FORM

02/13/2012 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

[philman_36]

Notice you're the only person here who is confused by what was posted.
You can't presume that just because nobody else has responded to your reply that it means that others haven't noticed your reply.

Furthermore, lots of folks don't respond at all to many replies that are made on this forum every single day.

[edge919]

If someone rational has a question, I’m more than happy to answer it for them.

[philman_36]

They’re appealing Judge Malihi’s and Secretary of State Kemp’s infirm decision that Barry Soetoro is a natural-born citizen on the basis of dicta from an Indiana Appeals Court that never actually declared Obama to be a natural-born citizen.

See, to me, if you had written your sentence in the following manner then I wouldn't have said a thing...

They’re appealing Judge Malihi’s and Secretary of State Kemp’s infirm decision that Barry Soetoro is a natural-born citizen. Their decision was rendered on the basis of dicta from an Indiana Appeals Court that never actually declared Obama to be a natural-born citizen.

My apologies if you're offended, that's just how I see what you've written and not written. It appears, from the way your sentence was written, that you've already seen what the appeal is based upon.

[Harlan1196]

But Obama’s birthplace was not contested by Irion or Hatfield and stipulated as fact by Irion so on what grounds is the judge going to question it. The plaintiffs certainly didn't think it relevant to their case.

[Harlan1196]

Did you read the judges ruling? He explicitly explains how Orly failed to correctly present her evidence and witnesses in accordance with Georgia law.

Hatfield and Irion are competent - Orly is not.

[philman_36]

But Obama’s birthplace was not contested by Irion or Hatfield...

Are you aware that each of them had a separate case? Can a lawyer for one case make an objection to something in someone else's case?

For all practical purposes it should be viewed as if none of the other litigants was even present as each individual case was being presented.
Smashing it all together in the manner in which it was done only clouds the matter and allows people like you to make the very fallacious arguments that you have.

[Harlan1196]

But if each individual case does not challenge Obama’s birthplace then how can it be an issue in the judge’s decision?

Hatfield and Irion did not challenge Obama’s eligibility in general - they both had the same SPECIFIC challenge: That Obama was no eligible because his father was not a US citizen. That was the only issue to be decided in this case.

If Orly knew what she was doing, then perhaps Obama’s birthplace would have come into play.

[philman_36]

But if each individual case does not challenge Obama’s birthplace then how can it be an issue in the judge’s decision?
Well that's a damned good question! Why don't you think on that a while and let me know what you conclude on how the judge was able to do so.

Maybe you should consider this while contemplating that...
Was his place of birth an issue of contention or was his father's citizenship the relevant issue?

[Harlan1196]

“Plaintiff Welden has already stipulated that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. See Welden Opp. Mtn. “

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/counsel-proposes-a-separate-hearing-for-welden-v-obama-ga

[Chewbarkah]

“There’s nothing to indicate the judge was actually going to issue a default judgment.”

Further, had Judge Malihi entered a default judgment, and recommended that the GA SoS remove Obama from the ballot, there is no guarantee the SoS would have done so. The Dems’ media stooges would have unleashed a 24/7 attack campaign to pressure the SoS, saying that he would be cheating the President on a mere technicality, would be rigging the election for partisan reason, would be responsible for riots, etc. Default would have been the dream scenario from Malihi’s perspective.

[Harlan1196]

“Go somewhere” = be accepted by court of law.

Appeals say nothing about the validity of the case. If you think a succession of legal loses is “going somewhere” then more power to you.

I have always assumed that these cases would go to the bitter, futile end. I just don’t think they will be successful.

[philman_36]

Well there ya go... Plaintiff Welden makes no assertion regarding the Defendant’s passports, or social security number, or any other fact related to the Defendant, with the one exception of the fact that the Defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen.

[philman_36]

I just don’t think they will be successful.

IMO your thinking is as suspect as your prognostication.

[Harlan1196]

So why did Hatfield submit a motion to shift the burden of proof to Obama? The judge never granted his motion - Hatfield know HE had the burden of proof when he walked in the hearing room.

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Swensson-PowellvObama,MotionforDeterminationofPlacementofBurdenofProof,GeorgiaBallotAccessChallenge.pdf

The hearing was governed by the Georgia RULES OF OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS.

http://www.osah.ga.gov/documents/procedures/administrative-rules-osah.pdf

The Georgia SoS referred the case to the judge - from the rules:

“(j) “Referring Agency” means the state agency for which an administrative hearing is being held.”

Couple that with:

“(1) The agency shall bear the burden of proof in all matters except that:..”

it is clear who had the burden of proof.

[Harlan1196]

Since Wong Kim Ark is the core argument of Ankeny, what the judge was saying is the WKA trumps Minor v. Happersett.

Which is what you have been told all along.

[Harlan1196]

Well, since no eligibility suit has ever succeed, it is not a hard prognostication. Time will tell I guess - nothing we say here will make a difference so there is no point in getting too upset about it. We will see at the end.

[philman_36]

The judge never granted his motion...
Perhaps you should read this... @Order on Motion for Determination of Placement of Burden of Proof, Georgia Ballot Access Challenge Plaintiffs, Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, have filed a motion for determination of placement of burden of proof. Defendant is directed to file his response by 12 Noon, Monday, January 23, 2012.
SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of January, 2012

Was a response filed?

[Harlan1196]

So the only assertion relevant to his case is that his father was not a US citizen.

Isn't that what I just said?

And since he only cares about the citizenship of the father, he also stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii

He is simply saying that he is not jumping into the muck like Orly.

[Harlan1196]

The only thing that matters is that the judge did not grant it.

So what gave Hatfield the idea he had the burden of proof?

[philman_36]

Which is what you have been told all along.

Just because I've been "told" something about some particular thing it doesn't mean that what I've been told is actually true.

I mean, if I were "told" that "the sky is falling" and "the moon is made of cheese" does that mean that what's being told to me is actually true simply because I'm told it is?