Ding, ding ding! In my view that's about it. And no, this ALJ has no authority whatsover to render a landmark Constitutional ruling-- any more than his brother, that drunken magistrate in Mississippi.

FWIW, however the case moves forward from here, it really wouldn't surprise me if Jablonski faces some kind of sanction from the court. Regardless of whether it's a smart move strategically, it's not a great idea in general to consciously (and quasi-publicly) blow off a judge and try to go over his head at the last minute to get a case thrown out. And when it's a case with media attention, that's even worse.

It never occurred to me that this was actually a battle for the heart and soul of Birtherism.

Orly got played by her own team, didn't she? The battle for the birth certificate is effectively over, isn't it?

The maniac Sven might actually be right.

The only thing that matters right now is Vattel. I completely missed this.

The problem I have with this: he could have responded to their claims of ordering the president to show up. He didn't.

My understanding is that it doesn't have the authority to interpret constitutional law. Neither does the SOS? All the judge can do is make a recommendation to the SOS as to if Obama can remain on the ballot. To me, by presenting their so called *evidence*, they shot themselves in the foot. But, I guess we will just have to wait and see...........

So will Malihi be sending John (I ate Stan Laurel) Sampson to arrest President Obama because he has to buy his bullshit too?

He has to interpret to make a ruling. Every judge has to do so.

I'm suspecting it may have been more along the lines of:

Judge (said) - "Since the defense attorney isn't here, why don't we plan to rest your cases and I'll issue a default judgement"

Birthers (heard) - "Since the defense attorney isn't here, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah I'll issue a default judgement"

Birthers (said) - "Does that mean we can present our arguments so they're on the record?"

Judge (said ) - "Sure, but then I have to make a judgement based on those arguments instead of making a default judgement."

Birthers (heard) - "Sure, but then I have to make blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah a default judgement."

Birthers (said) - "Yippie!! Get a rope, it's frogmarching time!!"

The birders would turn down an offer of default against The President because they don't really give a shit about him appearing on the ballot. They saw today's hearing as a way of entering their crackpot theories into the legal record. All they managed to do was introduce The President's Long and Short form BCs into the legal record. Game, set, match (Only they are on the losing side). Should have taken the deal, if it was really offered.

Er... what "court"?

Absent a direct and unequivocal order from a judge to appear, is anyone ever required to appear at a proceeding that is a nullity? If Jablonski's original Motion to Dismiss were to prevail on review, that's exactly what this carnival was -- a nullity from start to end.

WAY too much information!

But seriously, thanks for the report, Daisy!

Could this be by design on the part of team Obama? Once a federal court rules on this, doesn't it pretty much take the punch out of the other state challenges or am I confused?

I did, way upthread. It dealt with the rights of Mr. Obama and the federal witnesses to remove under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1442 and In re Subpoena on Collins¹, Voyle v. Smithkline, 524 F.3d 249 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Had any attempt been made to enforce the so-called subpoenas, the case would have been removed. It could also have been removed prior to that time by the federal employees or President Obama under footnotes 13 & 14 and the text at fn 14 of Clinton v. Jones. But the Obama campaign decided as to the latter just to ignore it.

I liked the idea of removal because the hearing would have been stopped dead in its tracks. It would have taken months to sort out, by which time the primary would be over, and it would have all been the fault of the buffoon masquerading as an attorney who "issued" those subpoenas.

---

¹Not related to any of our members as far as I know.

First of all I fully understand the very real probability that irrespective of what the ALJ's recommendation to Kemp is and irrespective of whether Kemp does or does not remove Obama's name from the ballot, there is probably going to be an appeal which ends up in a judiciary 'court' after an appeal of Kemp's action. Secondly I apologise if these are foolish IANAL'ish remarks/questions that I'm about to make/ask.

I've noticed the contention that the COLB/Long Form have been entered in "the record". However I understood that strictly speaking today's proceedings were actually three hearings, not one.

Doesn't that mean that there are actually "three records", each of which are separate and independent of each other and that the COLB/Long Form only form part of the record of the first two hearings and not part of the record of Orly's hearing?

If affirmative, what happens in for example the contingency that Kemp decides to place Obama on the ballot and Van Irion/Hatfield don't appeal yet Orly does? Would the judiciary court that it ends up in under appeal actually be presented with the COLB/Long Form as part of the "record"? It wasn't presented at her hearing.

Be gentle with me if this is a totally daft conjecture.

And they got on record the official claims of the birthers. Which they can use to have prosecution for illegal activity. I hope so.

^^^^^^ This

Bingo.

Many birthers today have rejoiced that today finally evidence was entered on the record. As if the submission of evidence makes it automatically true, and majickly binding on everyone, everywhere.

* * *

Even if the proceeding isn't a nullity, absent an order no one is required to appear.

Suranis' post two pages upthread leads me to a couple of questions to the people who were there:

1. Was ALJ Malihi incredulous when President Obama's COLB and LFBC were introduced into evidence?

2. Did anybody see Orly Taitz try to object to that?

Corsi's got the exclusive:

Excellent observation, Loren. You've stirred it up and just made the life of another innocent law clerk miserable.

Do you plan these things or is it all just serendipity?

I think I disagree that there are three "cases". There was an order consolidating the cases back in December and setting a single hearing on 1/26. Two of the plaintiffs moved for separate hearings and those motions were granted. On the court website this still shows as one case.

It seems pretty simple to me. Kemp urged Jablonski to appear and basically said, if you don't show it's at your own peril. He didn't show and he got peril. Mahili told the plaintiffs' attorneys he's going to recommend in their favor because Jablonski didn't show up. Then he let them put their highlights in the record. He got annoyed with Orly when instead of highlights, she tried to bring in all of birther lore.

You're expecting these people to act like professionals. They're not professionals. Malihi is a whack job with an ego problem and Kemp is a Republican with a chance to make the President look silly and come with hat in hand. These guys have the golden ticket and they're not giving it away for fucking nothing, as Blago would say.

Very true. The lawyer I had after my auto accident issued 3 subpoenas for the driver of the 18 wheeler to show up to be deposed. He never did show up and was never deposed. We ended up settling the case out of court. I've slept since then so I can't remember all the details.........

I'm sorry; I thought I was giving good news. I've made that change, if you'd like to follow suit.