Yes. IMO, the news reports from Atlanta just deadpanned how nutty she was. (Race: Itsa Locator.) Taitz is so tone deaf that she touts them as accomplishments, when they are really further badges of dishonor.

Guys, you do know that Obama technically isn't eligible for the presidency? He is African American, he is black. The original constitution never protected blacks as citizens as they were not considered person(s). The Founders never made any such provision, any such law... so technically the birthers are right.... maybe we should forward this revelation to them? I'm sure they'll be happy to use this in the next lawsuit.

IANAL, but I saw someone mention that Orly should have objected to the copies of the birth certificates being entered into the record or agreed only to allowing them to be used to establish the nationality of Barack Obama's father. I don't understand how that works--are you allowed to accept part of a prima facie document, but not all of it? Something about that would seem illogical to me, because if you cannot trust the veracity of one of the claims on a document, doesn't that call the rest of the document's veracity into question?

I know that you can dispute prima facie evidence by presenting compelling evidence that calls its accuracy into question, but if your challenge is successful, does the whole document get thrown out or only the facts on the document you were able to refute? Does a photocopy of a digital copy of an official document count as prima facie evidence, anyway? I do expect that if Jablonski had shown up, he would have stipulated to the plaintiff's claim that the president's father was born in Kenya since it is something the president has himself asserted.

The issue waived is the admissibility of the document. It being properly admitted upon no objection, by people present and capable of doing so, it's in the record. The ALJ can assign it whatever weight he chooses. In the lack of any contrary evidence at all, it would probably actually be a clearly erroneous fact-finding for the Secretary of State not to give it credence and instead come to a factual conclusion manifestly contrary to the evidence of record.

Really, the only opportunity for even an ill-motivated SoS to throw the birfers a lifeline is relying on some kind of default.

Meh, they hinted at that at the hearing, with the 14th amendment stuff.

"Stipulation" might not technically be the right word, but the fact is that the documents were entered into evidence without objection to their foundation. In an adversary proceeding, the failure to object is essentially a concession that the documents submitted are authentic and may be considered by the trier of fact. Same is true of testimony, such as hearsay.

Being "considered" is not the same as taken as true. It just means that, for example, the ALJ can choose to rely on some aspect of Orly's "expert" testimony. For example, she asked him about curved lines and he repeatedly said that was normal & would be expected if a copy was made from a book. The ALJ could take that as being a piece of testimony corroborating the authenticity of the LFBC if he wanted.

Obviously, the reason Jablonski didn't object is that he wasn't there -- but that's his fault, he was given the opportunity to be there and chose not to attend. So in essence, his voluntary absence can be taken as a blanket waiver of all evidentiary objections --- there is no way that down the line he can claim that some evidence or testimony was improperly considered, at least not unless it is something so outrageous that it could be characterized as an abuse of discretion for the judge to even look at it. Some of Orly's stuff might fall in that category, I don't know, it gives me a headache to think about it. But the first 2 attorneys, particularly Hatfield, were quite professional in their demeanor and manner of presentation of evidence. The reading of an excerpt from Obama's book to establish any fact related to the father's life history was clearly improper -- for all the court knows, the book Obama wrote could be a work of fiction -- but it didn't seem pertinent to any material fact, so I think overall that's fairly trivial.

If Jablonski had been there to object, then the divorce records & FOIA records could have been objected to, and about the only piece of paper that would have come in would have been the LFBC -- though I think that Jablonski might well have been willing to stipulate that Obama's father was a non-citizen, thereby rendering the other evidence & testimony unnecessary.

I think you are absolutely correct, Loh. I just doubt that it is properly termed a stipulation.

What's clear is that three attorneys, putting their heads together and calling upon their collective legal experience, made a strategic decision to enter evidence into the record whose only effect could be to torpedo the heart of their case. That they first threw away the judge's offer of ruling in their favor to do so is only icing on our cake.

It's really quite amazing and quite sad that the hate and vitriol so outweigh the common sense in that crowd.

He's been around a long time. When I was out independently anti-birfing in the Spring of 2009, he was one of a hoard of birfers mucking up a government site. From there, Rikker sent me to PJ. I don't know how he specifically got into the ballot challenges, but I can easily seem him signing on to do one.

I'm not at all inclined to believe they ever had such an offer. I assume they are, being birfers, completely wrong about anything they say. I assume they just heard the word "default" and their tiny little pea-brains went into overdrive perceiving what was said through the lens of their abject lunacy.

While I wouldn't be surprised to see the word "default" in the recommendation and/or ruling, I'd be amazed to see anything resembling Vattelism or a finding of ineligibility other than on the basis that Obama didn't meet the burden shifted to him (supposedly) by Haynes v. Wells. I don't think that interpretation would survive review by the Georgia Supreme Court, but it might have to go there, probably on an expedited basis, to be overturned by the Georgia courts. It would have the life of a mayfly in the federal courts.

They could have only won the battle with a default, not the war. As they see it the war is convincing jurists (and thereby the citizenry) that indeed Minor v Happersett is precedent for natural born citizenship, based on its "holding" of requiring two citizen parents for one to be nbc.

To protect that premise on the record, they wished to enter the BC into the record to show that Obama's father was not a citizen. Of course, it also shows Obama born in the U.S. which makes him nbc. They could not, however, take what they hope is a test case bound for SCOTUS without showing on the record that Obama's dad was not a citizen.

Had Jablonski participated, I'm relatively certain he would have stipulated to that well-known, undisputed fact.

In other words, they are putting all their eggs in one basked, that basket being Minor, and hoping to take the case to SCOTUS for a determination.

I have doubts, the issue having already been decided long ago, and with no reason to revisit it, that SCOTUS would even take up the issue, but one never knows.

An "anchor baby" refused re-entry to the country due to not being a citizen might make a better case to get to SCOTUS... just sayin'.

Oh, wait...

I fully agree that it was more along the lines of, "While I'm sometimes inclined to grant one party a default if the other doesn't show up," the birthers heard "I am ruling that henceforth, Barack Hussein Obama II, or whoever he is, never, ever be allowed on Georgia's ballot. Go forth, Aryan, Hatfield and Taitz, present anything you want, and I will rule in your favor, in the name of the cause."

He may have even said "uncontested' instead of "default". No way to know.

In fairness, two of those attorneys were there only because they wanted a ruling on their 2-citizen parent argument and they had made clear at the outset, through their pleadings, that they conceded that Obama was born in Hawaii. So the evidence they introduced did not "torpedo" the heart of their case -- on the contrary, it established the necessary factual foundation that they probably believe is necessary to support the appellate test case they are aiming for.

Presumably those lawyers also are aware that Obama's being kept off the primary ballot would not prevent his nomination by his party. But what they may well have lost with default is the ability to set up their case to litigate the issue beyond the little corner of their state.

If a lawyer's goal is to establish new law or precedent, then sometimes the last thing they want is a default or a dismissal.

My point is, they took a fatal step in implementing their flawed plan, for which they will fail as a group. When, according to them, they could have walked out with a "default". Of course they didn't think about torpedoing their own case. That's why it's so funny.

Amazing they didn't take the "default". They would have lost on the submission of facts anyway, but....

They put on cases which clearly demonstrated the opposite. These clowns can't even sue a ham and cheese much less an empty table

Just want to thank all of y'all for reporting on a very interesting day in Hotlanta. Thanks

Only Orly thinks the birth certificate means anything, the other two hang their hats on the two-citizen parent argument; the BC showing Obama Sr. was born elsewhere only helps their case, in their minds.

Also, I love how Orly, in that clip upthread showing the "press conference," yelling at the reporter for showing disrespect toward her. Fuck you, Orly! You've been nothing BUT disrespectful toward anyone who questions your crusade against Obama. And you deserve noting BUT disrespect.

Some background on Malihi --

I don't know where this fits or what it means -- but you might recall from the hearing that Carl Swennson is from Clayton (he is chairman of the Clayton County Republican party)

Four years ago, the Clayton school district lost its accreditation and the entire school board either resigned or were fired. Among those that were fired were 4 African-American women who had been charged with ethics violations related to open meeting laws; the charges were raised by white citizens. The school board members were fired by the Governor after a finding was made that they were guilty of multiple ethics violation after an administrative hearing.

The ALJ on that case was Malihi.

Here's an article from the NY Times about the situation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/educa ... ayton.html



I really haven't been able to find much online that gives me any insight into what was really going on, so I have no idea whether there was a racially charged witch hunt going on or whether there really were serious problems with abuse of power on the school board.

Here's some more background:
http://www.theteachersadvocate.com/id133.html
(gives a sense of the source of the complaints)

Report that preceded loss of accreditation:
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/ajc/pdf/sacsreport.pdf

Press release referencing Malihi's role:
http://gov.georgia.gov/00/press/detail/ ... 35,00.html

I disagree. I think Frick and Frack (but not Orly) are now in a stronger position to pursue their "theory" than if they had accepted some sort of default. The only fact they needed to establish is BO's father's non-citizenship and they did manage to get evidence to that effect on the record. What did they lose by presenting their cases?

Oh sure, they threw Orly under the bus. But I see that as a win-win -- for everyone except Orly's minions.

Actually, I think Chilidog left out the more amusing portion of David's and my discussion:

David: “In a court of law, uncontested testimony is the truth.”
Me: "You DO realize, don’t you, you weren’t IN a court of law?"
David: "Especially in an administrative court, uncontested testimony is the truth."

I got the impression he was slightly miffed at being nitpicked



Even better, overturn Supreme Court precedent. I could arrange to have a note delivered to opposing counsel telling him he left his lights on. Then, while he's out checking his car, have my witness testify that Minor v. Happersett defines NBC as 2-citizen parents. Since opposing counsel wasn't present to object -- voila! -- I've nullified WKA.

What fun you could have

Closing the record just means that nothing more can be added. I think you're confusing it with "sealing the record."

I don't know if Farrar knows something we don't know, but I think Malihi knows this will go down the way we suspect: Malihi's going to recommend Pres Obama not appear on the ballot, and he already knows the Sec of State will agree. Then DPOG could amend its bylaws to get around the decision. I don't think they'll do that. I think they'll take it to court and the case will move quickly because of the time limit. I can't see the Dems in GA or the Obama campaign not fighting the decision.