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

stu the loon is wrong again plus by his definition he is now a birther.

1. In this procedure the judges ruling goes to the head of the election board.... not superior court.

2. that you would even care to bring up typos from years ago shows you what a troll you are....

now lets see...

3. Stu says anyone with a valid reason can and should challenge. (I agree)


By those facts...

Stu is a birther.





Quote from stu:

You seem to be one of those who think that anything they say must be always be correct.
What ARE you trying to argue? Do you even know?

I've already said anyone can question a candidates eligibility. That is the law as it stands and is how the law is applied. People are perfectly free, as they should be, to look to law for remedy in any situation where they have reason to understand a candidate from any party is ineligible.
It's whether they have good reason, whether a claim has grounds, has standing , is valid, or even sensible and not just some wingnuttery like the birthers claim is, which is the point here.

As to the second part of your confused argument, by which it is clear you haven't got a hold on any of this really, is about Administrative procedure. It does not change anything of the law in Georgia where an Administrative Judge will apply to the superior court if they wish to enforce anything they have ordered, whether in the form of a default order or a compulsion to say, testify, for example.
I suggest instead of trying to jump fences not reached yet , you go reference that particular part of Georgia code.

You say you were a lawyer yet it took me 5 or 6 trys until I taught you to spell cite not site, since when you do not repeat that error of ignorance.
I now suggest if you are going to keep quoting law, you apply your attention to the order in which law is applied and works and stop missing the relevent steps that control the one which follows. I have a feeling that is going to take you a lot more than 6 attempts.:p

Unlike Taitz and other birthers, I would also suggest you try understand what argument you want to make by first understanding the facts that surround it.

However it does seem as a hot headed slow witted birther you much prefer to just jump straight in.
More...
 
IMO this is bad news for Obama. The judge is probably making sure every base is covered before he makes a ruling against a sitting president.

Valerie Ruff, secretary to Judge Malihi, stated a few moments ago that the word from the Judge is that his decision is likely to be sent to the Secretary of State’s office either this evening or Monday.

Final assessments are being made; and presently the Judge is going over all the aspects of the hearing with all of the “legal eagles” making sure that all the t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted.”

Based on the outcome of the decision made by the Secretary of State’s office, there could be an appeal if President Obama is deemed not eligible to be on the Georgia ballot because of his birth.

There is just little over one month from today for the Secretary of State to make his decision before the Presidential Preference Primary.

http://www.examiner.com/news-you-ca...gia-s-eligibility-hearing-for-president-obama
 
As I mentioned earlier on this thread, it was a risk when plaintiff's chose to put on evidence instead of letting the default happen. They were stupid.

How can a candidate who puts on no evidence win? When the plaintiffs ask for hearing on the merits and have no real evidence themselves.

Malahi found in favor of Obama.

here was a pretty interesting part...

"Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a nonetheless Plaintiff's asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs' request.

By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing."
 
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/02/03/judge-soundly-rejects-ga-birther-claims/

Judge soundly rejects Ga. birther claims



Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi has rendered his judgment, breaking birther hearts all over the country: Barack Obama will remain on the 2012 primary and general election ballot in Georgia.

The judge’s written opinion all but drips with scorn for the absurd case presented to him by Orly Taitz and her colleagues:

“The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations…. None of the testifying witnesses offered persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the court concludes the plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”

In other words, the birthers finally got a judge to listen to their “evidence,” and even with no opposing counsel in the courtroom, the judge concluded that their case was total and complete bunk.
 
Quote from jem:



As an american we had our requested day in court. The decision is now in the courts/state body's hands. They system has reviewed the evidence of eligibility Obama wished to proffer. They system is now working.

More...

As jem stated,they have now had their day in court.



My guess is orly tatz will file another lawsuit soon and once again jem will be dragging out another 75 page birther thread arguing that Obama is not eligible :(
 
Orly Taitz has some interesting comments on her site including a comment that the judge did not believe Minor was the controlling case for definition of natural born citizen. The judge appears to have concluded that:

1) Obama was born in Hawaii, and

2) A person born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=31124

Here is more indepth comments take from this just realeased story:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/judge-says-obama-can-be-on-georgia-ballot/

He (Judge Malihi) cited a little-known determination by an Indiana judge.

“The Indiana court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth,” wrote Michael Malihi, an administrative law judge in Atlanta.

“For the purposes of this analysis, this court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

[snip]

Mark Hatfield, one of the attorneys who, along with Van Irion, focused on the issue of the definition of “natural born citizen,” said the judge ignored the issue of burden of proof.

“If Obama has the burden of proof, and failed to show up, clearly he didn’t carry the burden,” he told WND. “The judge here completely ignores that.”

He also noted it was highly unusual for a judge to reach into another state’s repository of court rulings to fetch something that would be supportive of the result when the U.S. Supreme Court itself has made a determination.

He said he’s hoping the Georgia secretary of state will evaluate the issue carefully, but he’s prepared to take the dispute to the appeals level.
 
Quote from stu:

Meaningless drivvle AND you quote Oily Taitz. Much doesn't come more foolish than that.
Still I must remember, you are a birther. It comes with the territory.
More...

An E toast to STU and all my fellow anti birthers



kcfkfn.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top