Not daft at all. In fact, I think it presents a complex problem. If the first two attorneys entered Internet copies and conceded authenticity and, at the same time, Orly did not have an opportunity to object, it would be unfair to Orly not to have given her a tabula rasa in her attempt to impeach the BCs.

Of course, it'd be a stickier problem if Orly actually did manage to adduce enough competent evidence to put the issue in doubt. But since she didn't -- not even close -- the judge can blow off her hearing altogether and use the BCs in the first two hearings to reach his findings of fact. It's my opinion that he needs to reach a single finding as to place of birth and age and would not write one set of findings that conflicts with the other.

Exactly; that alone would give someone higher up in the food chain a reason to disregard the findings.

I must have missed the Order to Show Cause that would require any attorney to appear to represent Obama in any forum in Georgia. Perhaps you could obtain that document, please?

I have a question about the 'record.' IS the SoS confined to the 'record' (such as it is), for making his determination? It seems unlikely to me. Historically the SoS would rubberstamp the ALJ's recommendation, so it may not often be an issue. But is there statute?

Allegedly (Stern) a certified COLB was sent to Kemp. What difference will that make? Is all this about the birthers introducing their own versions of the BCs only relevant as to how it may influence Malihi?

What about on appeal? An appeal would not be an appeal of a judicial lower court ruling. It would be an appeal of an administrative final determination. Still confined to the 'record'?

Does the 'record' include all the motions practice and especially correspondence leading up to the hearing? Didn't Jablonski refer to all these various existing 'proofs' -- the BCs online, etc.? Is that persuasive in the 'record'? Or does an official document have to be entered into evidence in some fully qualified way (bagged and tagged)?

Just musing. Thanks for any insights.

Subject: Georgia Election Challenge


Piff -- I set forth my FF&CL upthread. See if you can improve on them. They will fit on a matchbook single page and comprehensively deal with all of the crap adduced by the buffoons who pretended to be lawyers today.

I am not sure exactly what you are wanting the judge to do. Could you elaborate? If it was quash the subpoena, I heartily agree with you. But having ruled the way he ruled, and AFAIK no further motion to quash, and having a room full of crazy people and perhaps being aware of what had happened in New Hampshire after the ruling there, prudence might have made him just let them rant and get it over with. Not saying I agree with the judge (I believe he handled this case extremely poorly in letting it get to this circus) but from his perspective, not saying anything about that ordering of the president to show up might keep the folks in the courtroom calm. They believed they won after all. They had their trial, it's all over but the frogmarching. I await the immanent arrest of the President by a reinstated General Lakin and Admiral of the Fleets Fitzpatrick.

With the cases severed, how could Taitz object? Wasn't she just a garden-variety observer at that point?

The birthers were telling the judge how he had ordered Obama to be there.

The judge didn't.

So all he has to do is say "No, I didn't. I find you to be lying about me. "

He didn't say anything. He let them make that claim.

Question: what if he thinks he DID order the president to be there?

Nothing in the statute (specifically, 21-2-5(c)) says that the SoS is limited to the record.

No, because these are not private law suits in which a remedy is afforded tailored to each plaintiff. It is an action to determine whether or not Obama is properly on the ballot -- and the ALJ's duty is to conduct a fact-finding hearing and then report his findings to the SoS.

I personally thought that one way of dealing with it would have been for Jablonski to show up for the first hearing, preserve his jurisdictional objection, introduce the COLB, rest, and go home before the Orly show started. The ALJ can't ignore the COLB because it was introduced in case A, but not B or C.

If I had thought thing out a little more, I might have realized that the only "evidence" the first 2 plaintiffs could produce to prove that Obama's father was a Kenyan was via a birth certificate -- otherwise there simply is no evidence of parentage. So of course, to make their argument, they would necessarily have to introduce the birth certificates -- and that may be one reason why Hatfield attempted to subpena the original. (Hatfield had written a notice to produce that was quite "reasonable" in term of requesting production of the LFBC, because he attached the DOH documents attesting to the fact that Obama had received 2 such certifications, and deliberately requested that only 1 be produced ).

Here's where they screwed up: they needed to waive their Vattel argument.. In a real case, with real lawyers, it sometime happen that the plaintiff (or prosecution) fails in its proof, and a defense lawyer may change strategy and abandon plans to present an affirmative defense, recognizing that the defense evidence will fill the gap. But these lawyers were more interested in presenting their cases than in actually "defending" against the claim that Obama is eligible, which is the situation they were presented with with the shifting of burden of proof to Obama.

The ALJ has to present the evidence he's got to Kemp.

I don't think that he bought the Vattel argument because I don't think it has even been presented or argued in a way that makes sense ... but even if he did it wouldn't matter, because he has to render findings of fact & conclusions of law, and if his facts are right and the legal conclusions are wrong -- the state AG will probably set the SoS straight, and if not it's a dead bang easy appeal.

I don't think the Obama campaign would mind seeing a definitive appellate decision early on rejecting the two-citizen-parent claim, though I think it's highly unlikely to get that far.

Thanks Piffle. I think I understand the rationale of your answers to my questions. Appreciated. Others' remarks noted too. Ta muchly.

Uh, look upstream. I already did, Sterny my man -- including the suggestion that you make sure it fits on a single page. (Come to think of it, did you steal that from me?) Heh, it's way, way upstream. (Upstream is the past two minutes, way upstream is past hour and way, way upstream is earlier this afternoon.)

I'd add, just as a technicality... you can't get a "default" against the party who bears the burden of proof.

Normally it is the plaintiff how bears the burden of proof, so when a plaintiff shows up in court and the defendant doesn't, the typical procedure is for the plaintiff to do a quick prove-up for the record, and then the plaintiff can take judgement.

If, as occasionally happens (usually at the small claims level), the defendant shows up but the plaintiff does not, then the failure of proof results in a "dismissal", not a "default".

I wanted to back up and pick up one loose end here that a couple of folks have asked about.

The question is whether testimony becomes "proven fact" by virtue of being unopposed.

The short answer is, no it does not.

Credibility and reliability are always at issue. The finder of fact can disregard anything he/she/they find to be incredible or unreliable.

I can testify that grass is blue and the sky is green. Nobody has to believe it by the virtue of my having testified to it.

That's interesting. I wonder if Malihi used the term "default"?

I have been trying to find the documents at Jack Ryan's. I found Malihi's ruling to consolidate and the motions for separate hearings but I cannot find his motion granting the separate hearings. It carries the same docket number on the web site so I maintain it is one case: Farrar v Obama.

I believe you, Res.

Not to mention most of what was testified to in Orly's part of the thing was pure opinion and conjecture, none of it was "evidence" per se.

whoops.

If the video becomes available on line, I plan to review that part -- it seemed to me that the ALJ seemed surprised, and that he deliberately and specifically asked if they conceded the validity of at least one of the certificates before offering it into evidence... but I'd like to take second look.

I would not that the Vattel plaintiffs have conceded all along that Obama was born in Hawaii, so they may not see it as in anyway hurting their cause, whichever way it goes -- their main goal may be to set up a case for appeal to resolve the issue, which for some reason they think they can win.

If it helps, here's the Administrative Rule on default:

How do we even know that Judge Malihi has even shifted the burden of proof to President Obama? Did we see an order on the Hatfield motion for determination of the burden?

Wilmott has a news video.
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2 ... 5note.html

It might be elsewhere.

I posted in other thread by mistake.

Swensson and Farrar both reported it as "default". Two plaintiffs with two attorneys. I bet somewhere in there Whackjob Malihi said Jablonski/Obama defaulted by no showing up. I'm convinced the guy's a vindictive nut. Jablonski/Obama defied him and he's punishing them. Kemp warned J.