What would be the reasoning for doing this? And what is the effect of it?

'Bob' at Dr Khates, advising his fellow birthers to emulate Harry Riley and pester Judge Malihi:

I'm sure Malihi and his assistant will be thrilled to receive more phone calls from birfers.

And it's NOTHING compared to what he's in for if his recommendation to the SoS leaves the slightest latitude for ruling in the candidate's favor.

On Thursday, Orly had a wide open forum, and finished her arguments with 45 minutes remaining on the clock. Here's a partial list of things that Birthers have obsessed over, but Orly not only thought weren't important enough to mention, but apparently thought were SO unimportant that she chose to finish early rather than bring them up:

- Obama born in Kenya?
- Obama born in Canada?
- Lucas Smith's Kenyan birth certificate
- The Mama Sarah/McRae tape
- Newspapers (esp. foreign newspapers) that called Obama 'Kenyan-born'
- Kenyan Parliament transcripts
- The claim that everyone in Kenya thinks he was born ther
- Obama's dual citizenship at birth
- Forged newspaper announcements
- Claims that the COLB was forged
- The word 'African' on the COLB instead of 'Negro'
- Obama's trip to Pakistan
- Obama's passport for his trip to Pakistan
- Obama's selective service form
- Ann's age when Obama was born
- McCain's Senate Resolution
- The supposed Hawaiian law that allows for out-of-state births to be registered as Hawaiian births
- MissTickly's claims about the raised seal
- Anything more than a passing mention of Vattel. No discussion of how he was the Founders' biggest influence.
- The mention of 'Law of Nations' in the Constitution
- Whether Obama attended Columbia
- Whether Obama was a CIA agent
- Whether Obama was a Soviet sleeper agent
- Obama's father was Frank Marshall Davis
- Obama's father was Malcolm X
- Obama's father was his grandfather
- Obama's mother was his grandmother
- Obama's mother was not Ann
- Bill Ayers wrote Dreams

Sure, not all of that is directly related to eligibility, but neither is Obama's law license or his time in Indonesia or his SSN, which is what Orly spent most of her time on.

I think you have struck on another point as to why these folks hate President Obama so much (besides his skin color, his funny sounding name, he's not ultra-conservative, etc.) is that many of them come from backgrounds that are just as unlikely to lead to success in life. President Obama was able to achieve success at the highest rung of power in the world. These folks are still struggling to simply hold on to their humble beginnings and not slip further down the social ladder. And they fear that their children and/or grandchildren will consider themselves lucky just to have a roof over their head, forget about any dreams of success beyond that of merely surviving day to day.

Foggy, did you ever see President Obama step off the sidewalk into the mud of the street just so a White Lady could pass without coming near him? And did he symbolically take off his hat, even though he was not wearing one? That's what "arrogant" means if you are a person of color.

Don't I know it, Tollie.

Not 20 miles from where I sit on this glorious January morn, in the year 1970, when the President was only 9 years old, a black military veteran was brutally murdered on the street in Oxford for the crime of "saying something" to a white woman.

In that time, a black man couldn't grow up to be elected dogcatcher, much less President of the United States.

The world changed too fast for some folks. They have a problem accepting reality. It's difficult to adjust, when you were raised a certain way. I understand that. Do I sympathize with it? Not in the slightest. I say take those folks and shove reality down their throats. They lived in a time of evil, and they became evil, and evil must be fought.

These assholes keep saying they want their country back. If that's the country they want back, I won't stand for it.

I have, indeed, encountered “gas mask operators before, and have posted here about them. Sadly, when I searched under “gas mask” and “gas masks” I couldn’t find my treasured words.

When I did court martial defense work 40 years ago they were routinely used in the military since, for some strange reason, no licensed court reporters wanted to serve in the military. Beyond that experience, I have also attended depositions (early in my career) where the court reporter was truly a “shorthand” reporter, without a machine.

I just had to share this.

My Latin's a bit rusty, but based on this, ex animo must mean "out of his mind."

Looks more like WWI technology adapted to WWII Navy legal proceedings

Different models for different facial features.

TOP SECRET TOP SECRET

ALJ Mahili has been a case study in the Peter Principle. However, Secretary of State Brian Kemp has been somewhat of a mystery in this discussion. This analysis of his positions as candidate for Georgia Secretary of State might prove illuminating. Note that he served as an appointed official before being elected in 2010.

Orly's Perfume - you know how staff get all pissed off when someone wears that kinds of really cheap shit.

Cross-posted from Atlanta Hearing Reports

I'd like to build on BB's excellent observations which can be found here:
Subject: RESERVED for Atlanta Hearing Reports.

Since Taitz no longer can use the thoroughly debunked Kenyan fake birth certificates, her case has become one of "questioning" the identity of President Obama. But "raising questions" does not constitute proof. Taitz said in an interview after the hearing that her role was to "raise reasonable doubt." Raise "reasonable doubt" about what? President Obama's identity? That his social security number was wrongly issued? That his selective service number no longer returns his name if people illegally access his files on the social security website?

In quantifying the burden of persuasion, most lawyers and appellate decisions agree that if a case needs to be proven to a "preponderance," it means just slightly more than 50% of the evidence must demonstrate the facts needed to prove the issue. In trying to quantify the "beyond a reasonable doubt" rule, while exact numbers are difficult, we're talking about evidence that proves underlying facts in at least the 97-98% range. So, what Taitz is saying is she only has to smear enough shit on the record to show there is a 2-3% chance her facts are right.

Of course, Taitz has no competent, relevant admissible evidence at all. Her "evidence" does not move the fact-meter in any respect at all. But she also completely misconstrues what her burden of persuasion is. It is to adduce evidence which moves the meter 50.1% -- by a preponderance -- not to raise "reasonable doubt" and move the evidence maybe 2-3%.

Just as Taitz misunderstands the burden of persuasion, she also misunderstands what her role is as an advocate. Her role is not to raise "suspicions" so that somebody else -- appointed and directed by the tribunal -- will do the real work and investigate and prove the facts, her job is to do the real work and perform the investigation to prove the issue.

It is based on Taitz's total misunderstanding of what court and hearing officers do, and her role in that process that leads to her utter incompetence and total failure on every level in every hearing she participates in. That's what happened with her car wreck in Atlanta.

One other factor contributes to that result, IMO.

She is, in reality if not always officially, her own client.

(I have really enjoyed and appreciated these recent comments about the record, evidence, etc., from the IAMCAGDLs*)

I think so people like me can't call the clerk and get copies of the documents?

I can imagine a scenario where there was some talk during the chambers conference to the effect that, "You know that if I make the recommendation to strike Obama from the primary ballot and the Secretary of State agrees, the Democratic Party of Georgia will simply amend its bylaws concerning how its delegates will vote at the convention -- don't you?"

Without looking at the bylaws, I don't know if this is possible, but assuming it is, the party can just amend its rules governing how delegates are bound when the party's candidate is unopposed. The ALJ might have pointed out to the plaintiffs the ultimate futility of their quest.

SoS Kemp appears to have the moral courage to do whatever he believes puts him in the most favorable light. He also appears to be just as honest as his two predecessors.

I think Farrar is misunderstanding what Hatfield and Irion requested. A default order allows the ALJ any number of options, one of which is to close the record for the defaulting party, i.e., not allow the the defaulting party to submit further evidence. It appears that Hatfield and Irion requested this option -- that the record be closed, pre-empting Jablonski from submitting evidence in conjunction with his FF & CL.

By this logic, given that Jablonski wasn't present, Farrar could have taken the stand and claimed the sky was green, purple unicorns live in his garage, and Obama was born on Mars, and the judge would have to take such things as fact.

The judge will certainly lend greater weight to uncontested facts but there is still a burden present. Furthermore, much of what Farrar is talking about aren't questions of fact but those of law, and the judge doesn't have to take anybody's assertions of what the law is as valid. If Farrar gets on the stand and says the law says murder is OK, the fact that no defense says "Actually it isn't" doesn't mean it is. The law is what it is.