Birthers Hail Judge’s Decision That Could “Depose” Obama

[jem]

That is one funny rebuttal.

Tolls like stu are not bothered by facts, reality or truth. But if his cave has enough light to see pictures... perhaps he will admit he was wrong again.

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birther-1318374.html


No ruling in ‘birther' challenge

After hearing evidence with neither President Barack Obama nor his lawyers in attendance, a state administrative law judge on Thursday did not issue a ruling as to whether Obama can be allowed on the state ballot in November.


Lawyers for area residents mounting "birther" challenges told Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi that Obama should be found in contempt of court for not appearing when under subpoena to do so. But Malihi did not indicate he would recommend that and cut off one lawyer when he criticized Obama for not attending the hearing.

"It shows not just a contempt for this court, but contempt for the judicial branch," lawyer Van Irion told Malihi.

"I'm not interested in commentary on that, counselor," Malihi quickly replied.

Late Wednesday, Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, wrote Secretary of State Brian Kemp, asking him to suspend the hearing. "It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here -- a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country," Jablonski wrote.

Jablonski also served notice he would boycott the hearing.

In response, Kemp said the hearing to consider the challenges is required by Georgia law. "If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the [Office of State Administrative Hearings] proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril," Kemp wrote.

Thursday's hearing was held before a packed courtroom with almost every seat taken -- except for those at the defendant's table facing the judge.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from jem:

We will let the courts decide what records are deemed accepted into the record. Courts have hundreds of years of experience dealing with evidence... they are very good at it.

That thing Odumbo offered up as a birth certificate some months ago... many folks said it was phony, yet collectively we "took" it as evidence.

Considering the great likelihood of deception, shouldn't there be forensic examination?

 

[jem]

Quote from Scataphagos:

That thing Odumbo offered up as a birth certificate some months ago... many folks said it was phony, yet collectively we "took" it as evidence.

Considering the great likelihood of deception, shouldn't there be forensic examination?

Which is why you have to wonder he chose to "boycott" instead of simply submitting his birth certificate.

Loons do not know the difference between proof and fantasy... but courts have experts who do.

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from jem:

That is one funny rebuttal.

Tolls like stu are not bothered by facts, reality or truth. But if his cave has enough light to see pictures... perhaps he will admit he was wrong again.

As STU stated Obama will be on GA's ballot in November jem ,count on it

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

So now the democrats are saying that they decide who is on the ballot.. not courts, not the state and not the constitution.

No. That's just you saying that.

People are just not going to even entertain the same repeat birther bs as it is foisted upon the system and the courts to fail, over and over again, is a more realistic interpretation

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from stu:

No. That's just you saying that.

People are just not going to even entertain the same repeat birther bs as it is foisted upon the system and the courts to fail, over and over again, is a more realistic interpretation

+1

 

[jem]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

As STU stated Obama will be on GA's ballot in November jem ,count on it

but you just told me a few days ago - that obama would produce his pdf birth certificate and win?

When I suggested there would be a hearing - you used to laugh and call me a birther...

When I predicted a hearing on the evidence you told me it would never happen.

I am no longer confident in your predictions.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

No. That's just you saying that.

People are just not going to even entertain the same repeat birther bs as it is foisted upon the system and the courts to fail, over and over again, is a more realistic interpretation

No that the head of the democratic party in Georgia saying this...

"...

“We respect the President’s position and urge the Secretary of State to bring this matter to a conclusion. We also believe that each political party has the absolute legal right to determine who should appear on their primary and general election ballots according to their own rules without interference from outside parties."

 

[jem]

here is the quote.

Quote from jem:

So now the democrats are saying that they decide who is on the ballot.. not courts, not the state and not the constitution.

I wonder why?

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insi...t-to-remove-barack-obama-from-georgia-ballot/

Here’s the statement just released by Mike Berlon, chairman of the state Democratic party:

“Several lawsuits were recently filed against President Obama questioning whether he is an American citizen in an attempt to remove him from the Georgia primary ballot. Despite the fact that these issues have been thoroughly litigated, a hearing has been scheduled in these cases for Thursday, January 26, 2012. The Democratic Party of Georgia is not a party to any of these lawsuits.

“This afternoon we received a letter from counsel for the President directed to the Georgia Secretary of State asking him to intervene in these lawsuits and bring them to a halt, because it is well established that there is no issue here – a fact validated time and again by courts in this country.

“In the letter, counsel also indicated that they had no interest in continuing to appear or participate further in the litigation and have suspended their involvement.

“We respect the President’s position and urge the Secretary of State to bring this matter to a conclusion. We also believe that each political party has the absolute legal right to determine who should appear on their primary and general election ballots according to their own rules without interference from outside parties.

“In light of these developments the Democratic Party of Georgia has no plans to continue to be involved in these baseless cases. Furthermore the Democratic Party of Georgia will cooperate with the President and his campaign in any way requested to make sure that his name appears on the primary and general election ballots for 2012.”

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

here is the quote.

So they didn't say "they decide"....why did you say they did?

They're urging the Secretary of State to come to a conclusion. In other words for him to decide.