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

[pspr]

Obama's Elgibility Challenges Spread To 6 States

An administrative law judge in Georgia could decide as early as this week whether voters in the state convinced him Barack Obama’s name should be removed from the 2012 presidential ballot because he is not qualified to hold the office.

But win, lose or draw, the fight isn’t going to be over, as other cases are erupting across the nation, with challenges being raised anew even in Obama’s own adopted political network in Illinois.

The Georgia hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi, and while none of the lawyers who appeared in the proceedings was willing to predict what the decision will be, several did confirm that Malihi had considered simply granting them a default victory, because Obama and his lawyers expressly stated they would not participate in a hearing to provide evidence that he is qualified to be on the ballot.

A default presumably would have meant a recommendation from the judge that Obama’s name be stricken from the ballot, a decision which would head for review immediately by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

He, however, was the one who warned Obama of the “peril” of not participating in the hearing when Obama and his attorney had asked that the event be canceled.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-eligibility-challenges-spread-to-6-states/

 

[jem]

Stu --

You lie about things just a few pages ago.
Below is the beginning of your bullshit on the subject of whether obama must provide proof of eligibility.

All anyone has to do is go back an read this thread, just a few pages.

You have gone from moron loon... to disgusting liar.

And you still have not explained your moronic statement that an ALJ judge or an attorney may not issue a subpeona. Where do you get that idea? It seems beyond loony in light of the fact... I personally have have issued subpoenas to appear and thereby compel testimony or take a deposition and i have issued subpoenas for the production of documents.

You are left of the looniest of obama loons.
You make up loony statements without proof or with loony proof.

Quote from stu:

For goodness sakes, there are no real facts and real evidence to be examined you idiot.

The onus is on the plaintiff to make a valid submission. It is not on Obama to keep constantly replying to the same pathetic birther bullshit nonsense that has been previously denied and thrown out of court ad nauseum.

There is no evidence to review because there is no evidence the plaintiff has anything that resembles a case you goof.

quote from stu...

"wtf seriously, are you being serious ?

I said, before evidence can be given in reply to a challenge, you need a valid challenge . Birthers don't have one.

Who said either lawyers or Judge Malihi does not have power to issue subpoenas. What the hell are you talking about?
What the lawyers do not have and neither does the judge , is the power to compel testimony. Neither did the Judge order Obama to attend.

Is everyone lying to you again? Then I suggest get back on your meds."

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

You lie about things just a few pages ago.

What is really wrong with you , apart from being an birthoramous?
The only person lying here - is you to yourself.

No court has found any challenge legitimate. There is no order or requirement from any court for Obama to provide evidence of eligibility any more than there is for any other candidate to do so.

For your own sake try and get a grip.

 

[Ricter]

What's going on with the Georgia thing now? I don't see anything on it, even on Fox.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

What is really wrong with you , apart from being an birthoramous?
The only person lying here - is you to yourself.

No court has found any challenge legitimate. There is no order or requirement from any court for Obama to provide evidence of eligibility any more than there is for any other candidate to do so.

For your own sake try and get a grip.

Nice dodge... now answer the question loon.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Nice dodge... now answer the question loon.

What question Jemoloon. Do you even have a legitimate question in you?

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

What's going on with the Georgia thing now? I don't see anything on it, even on Fox.

As you know the court in Georgia was the first court to have a hearing and review evidence.

Obama and his team did not show up.

The court could have just issued a default.
Which probably would have meant he would find that Obama should not be on the primary ballot. Then the election board would most like have acted consistently with his ruling...

but...
almost oddly the the plaintiff's lawyers wanted to put on a case.
So they supplied evidence.

I suspect this gave the court a lot more work to do.
So... we are waiting for a ruling.

 

[jem]

Stu --

My question was where on earth do you get off making statements that are so loony? (see your quote below)

ALJ judges and lawyers in their court do in my experience have the power to compel testimony.

So I was asking you for the law or other proof.

I realize Internet loons make shit up in ignorance but...
Intelligent people, academics, scientists, business people... we look for proof. Just like courts.

I realize in your and AKs loonatorium, internet downloads constitute constitutional proof of eligibility... but in the real world... we require authentication.

Quote from stu:


...
Administrative law judges as Malihi is in this case , don't have the authority to compel testimony. That would take an order from the Superior Court. ...

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

What's going on with the Georgia thing now? I don't see anything on it, even on Fox.

Briefs are to be submitted by Feb 1 to the Judge. You should hear by or before Feb 5 the court finds the birther claims have zero credibility.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Stu --

My question was where on earth do you get off making statements that are so loony? (see your quote below)

ALJ judges and lawyers in their court do in my experience have the power to compel testimony.

So I was asking you for the law or other proof.

I realize Internet loons make shit up in ignorance but...
Intelligent people, academics, scientists, business people... we look for proof. Just like courts.

I realize in your and AKs loonatorium, internet downloads constitute constitutional proof of eligibility... but in the real world... we require authentication.

You said I was lying whether Obama needs to "proffer evidence"
Completely untrue and unfounded.

You then seemed to imagine I said Lawyers in front of "ALJ judges" or the judges themselves do not have the power to issue "subpoena's"
Completely untrue and unfounded. I said no such thing.

Apparently you meant to say this ...

"ALJ judges and lawyers in their court do in my experience have the power to compel testimony."
...which is nothing the same or even similar to do with your "proffer evidence" derail or your false accusation. So why do you make such unintelligent remarks in the first place?


If you have a reasonable comment to make about being 'compelled to testify' I suggest you quit all the pathetic childlike insults as they are obviously confusing the hell out you anyway.

Were you not so vitriolic and hateful all the time you may have read a few pages ago where in reply to one of your rants I already mentioned, a Georgia Administrative Judge is to refer to a superior court. The Judge must do so for appropriate action to be considered against their certified findings in what they take to be a failure of testimony or whatever else.

You know I don't believe you were a lawyer, partly because of the things you don't know, and partly because to think any lawyer could act like you do in ET or as badly as Oily Titz and still be called a lawyer, to me just puts the profession into disrepute.