But a statute does tell us that a party certification shall be "on forms prescribed by the Secretary of State."- and also that it needs to be accompanies by a filing fee and declaration of candidacy and affidavit of each candidate. [Sec. 21--2-154(a). http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/201 ... /21-2-154/] I don't need to see an example of that form to figure out that it is not the same thing as a "list" [Sec 21-2-193 http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/201 ... /21-2-193/ ]



I think the statutory framework is quite clear and quite specific, though I would agree that it is definitely not simple. I mean, you really have to read the whole thing and pay attention to detail. If think the problem arises when you read a particular provision in isolation and assume it to mean something without looking at the whole set of provisions. If you make the assumption, for example, that a "primary" is an "election", without bothering to read the definition of "election" ... then while that is a reasonable assumption, it's not a matter of lack of clarity in the law. Rather, its making an assumption that a word means something in its ordinary sense. But it's not really a good idea to rely on assumptions when interpreting laws.

We had an example of that in California in 2003 in the election for Governor following the recall of Gray Davis. Qualifying for the post-recall election was ridiculously easy, and we ended up with 135 candidates on the ballot. You can see a list of all those candidates here: http://www.laalmanac.com/election/el07.htm#2003

The results of that election would not have been materially different if they had set the bar to candidacy high enough so that only the top 4 contenders were listed. So while it is valuable for everyone to have a voice, it makes sense to draw the line somewhere.

At the risk of incurring the wrath from high upon the thing, I'm returning to take another whack at the dead horse...

[ ]



I think I've laid out what I'm objecting to, but, to be clear, I am not calling you a birther or a troll--I just think you are taking some positions that cannot be logically justified*, you are failing to acknowledge facts that invalidate your arguments**, and that what you are advocating has the effect*** of stifling the sort of open, productive discussion that is what I love about the Fogbow.

* Like "no one gets to judge their own cause"

** Such as implying that the no-show was Jablonski's decision


[/ ]

Okay, that's it for the post-mortem pony pummeling for me--if Brygenon replies and I decide to answer, I'll do it in a PM as Raicha suggested...

This is the sentiment that really irks me, as someone who practiced law for roughly 20 years, sometimes with very difficult & high profile cases A lot goes on behind the scenes, and the more sophisticated the clients & the more lawyers involved in decision making, the greater the likelihood that somewhere along the line a lawyer is put in a position of doing something that is not his or her preferred choice.

Among other things i went to trial on cases that I felt were hopeless because I had a client too stubborn to accept what I felt was a reasonable settlement offer or plea bargain; and I had risk-averse clients who opted to settle for something I felt was unjust rather than take the risk or bear the costs of proceeding. I've had clients insist on my bringing and arguing motions or introducing evidence that I felt were a waste of time (but not so totally frivolous that I could ethically refuse my client's request.

I am a pretty stubborn person and can argue a point to death, so more often than not I convinced my clients or other attorneys on a team to see things my way ... but the point is, that is not always the case. Even a lawyer who is very capable, articulate, and insistent sometimes fail to convince his own client or other lawyer on the team as to preferred strategy.

I have no way of knowing what Jablonski's advice or suggestions were. I don't think he was afraid to show up at an administrative hearing, but I do think that the Obama legal team probably wanted to avoid the possibility of some media-attracting showdown over a motion to compel Obama's personal attendance -- so I am guessing that the denial of the motion to quash the subpoena was the event that compelled the empty table decision. My guess is that Jablonski advised the campaign from the outset that the challenge was improper under Georgia law; and that when Malihi denied his motion to dismiss, Jablonski probably told them that they could be reasonably certain of his position being vindicated by the Superior Court.

I personally would have handled things a little bit differently, if I had been the lawyer & I had the luxury of calling all the shots. But I learned a very long time ago that you can't second guess what is going on from the outside.

I'd point out that a while back there was a lengthy Fogbow thread devoted to ridiculing a certain criminal defense lawyer defending an apparently guilty child-killing mother in Florida. His client was acquitted. I didn't join the lawyer bashing at the time, partly because I wasn't following the trial closely, and partly because I didn't know the defense lawyer but could see possible tactical reasons for some of his behavior & choices. Sometimes when defending a tough case the best strategy is to just try to make a big mess of everything and cast mud around all over the place to see what sticks. I've seen some defense lawyers pull some pretty strange stunts along the way.

So I generally try to avoid criticizing or ridiculing lawyers who end up winning in the end. It often turns out that they knew what they were doing all along.

I would be surprised if Jablonski had no input on the decision, but it seems almost certain from the adoption of the "empty chair" strategy in subsequent administrative proceedings, like the Indiana Election Commission hearing, that this strategy reflects a decision at the national level.

I think the latest the national party could possibly have been involved would have been immediately after the denial of the motion to dismiss. This might even account for the oddness of the motion to quash. Perhaps, having decided it was very likely the empty chair strategy would be the chosen strategy, the motion to quash was basically a last attempt to throw Malihi a lifeline and let him know what he was getting himself into.

I'm pretty sure when the ultimate decision maker decided on going with the empty chair, that was after considering the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario, as many of us noted at the time, was that Malihi made a complete laughingstock of himself and got promptly reversed by a real court, with no impact on the national campaign.

I note that contrary to Orly's claims, a competent body like the Indiana Election Commission is entirely aware of why the Obama campaign would abstain from participation in the proceedings and not willing even to entertain a "demand" for default for longer than it took to say "aye" to a motion to deny it.

In any event, Jablonski either competently carried out or originated and then carried out a strategy that allowed Orly to fall flat on her face in Georgia and then dealt her a defeat in Indiana that seems to have unhinged her completely.

Also, why I'm continuing to beat this dead horse at all is that it may not be over. I'd kind of like to see an opinion from the Supreme Court of Georgia, since we're going to see future cases like this in the general election and even at the state level, the kind of vexatious idiots we're looking at won't go away. Even after Obama, they're likely to try to pull the same thing if Hillary runs, probably even still using Minor v. Happersett, which is actually even "better" to use against a female candidate. For reasons others have mentioned, as well as probable mootness, I don't think such a ruling is likely, but it would be good to have.

A binding and final ruling that this kind of nonsense is simply not allowed would put a stop to that forever and prevent any future circus-like hearing of this sort.

So what is the next court in Georgia? Is it the state Supreme Court? The only possible issue I could see a higher court looking at is the part of Judge Wright's ruling dealing with jurisdiction of the SoS. Thanks to Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest, pro se there is no underlying case. They had no case based on fact or law in the beginning. They sued the wrong party on appeal and never properly served anyone. Is the Georgia Supreme Court really going to look at this?

Oh, I'm sure he had "input"... but input isn't the same as making the decision.

The best evidence that Mr. Jablonski was following the instructions of his client at the administrative hearing level is the fact that he continues (successfully) to represent his client today.

I see it the same way you do. The record is such a mess that there's no need for the Georgia Supreme court to focus on the merits. There are no facts on which they could premise a reversal -- I mean, even if hypothetically there was an arguable basis for the challenge, the messed up pleadings and service meant that the Superior Court would not have been able to issue an order directed at the SoS prior to the primary, and post-primary it's all moot.

State courts sometimes overlook mootness if there's some policy reason to look at the case. There's a somewhat thin reason to do so here. It is arguable that the Secretary of State has defied previous Superior Court decisions, such as Terry v. Handel, that have basically said the SoS has no jurisdiction to hear cases like this. While that involved a general election and this involves a primary, the next time this issue comes up probably will be in the general election, and we will be looking at the usual gang of idiots again.

Depending on how likely it seems that a similar farce will play out during the general election, SCOGA may just want to make a definitive statement. I have no idea, after the previous performance, how much of a total political tool Kemp is and whether he will obdurately refer yet another challenge in the general election to an ALJ again. I think the likelihood of this issue recurring, and soon, creates a slim chance that SCOGA will ignore all the very good reasons they have for denying cert. This might depend on whether there are members of the Court who view the Secretary of State's handling of this case as an embarrassment (in both the legal and the red-faced sense).

This is a chilling thought, and Loren's examples of Georgia's refusal to include certain parties' candidates on the ballot make it clear that this is not a hypothetical situation. I understand that a petition process can get a candidate on the ballot, as it apparently did for both Ron Paul and Lenora Fulani in the 1988 Presidential General Election in Georgia.

State laws that impose additional requirements for candidates for the Presidency, such as the likelihood of a candidate receiving a significant percentage of the popular vote, seem both unconstitutional and anti-democratic. They also make a strong assumption: the electorate will vote in November in rough accord with how it signed petitions at the beginning of the election season. I can conjure up a situation in which the Green Party candidate became the winner of the General Election after some especially disastrous environmental catastrophe occurred. Or a situation in which a candidate of an anti-war party (which includes neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties) prevailed after, say, a nuclear strike by the U.S. on Iran. Both are fantasies, but it is not the job of the states to decide far in advance whether a candidate is running on a fantasy platform.

I know that this could result in ballots of impossible length. Even a ballot of moderate length -- the famed Butterfly Ballot in Palm Beach County in 2000 -- could result in voter confusion and error. However, it would have been possible to avoid the Butterfly Ballot fiasco by following simple rules for the design of survey questionnaires (a ballot is a glorified form of questionnaire). Moreover, Connecticut voters made their way through a 2008 ballot with seven candidates, giving native son Ralph Nader 1.16% of the votes. It even included a candidate, Roger Calero, who did not satisfy Constitutional requirements (born in Nicaragua of Nicaraguan parents, now a "green card" legal permanent resident). Connecticut left the question of eligibility up to the voters and the U.S. Congress. I favor the Connecticut way over the Georgia way mainly because it is easy to imagine a state in thrall to RWNJ's as making a decision to bar liberal candidates of any party. I know the Federal courts would overturn such a decision, but the situation ought never to arise.


As to why ALJ Malihi decided to hold his hearing, it may be that he thought that he had to do so once the Secretary of State had referred the question to him. Nobody has quoted a Georgia law as saying that he must hold a hearing. That meant that he chose to hold a hearing when he should have known that the law was against his doing so. Jablonski made that clear to him. That kind of attitude can lead to many unwarranted hearings and a great deal of busy work for the ALJ's of the state, causing both agencies and complainants to incur unnecessary expenses. Even an ALJ should know the law.

Re her mock trial:


The rehearsal may have hurt her more than it helped:

"No, no! You're off script! What do I say now!? LINE!"

What she needs is improv training. Louder and funnier. Dare I suggest... Second City?

Chicago and Orly: it's a mutual love affair.

IIRC Orly said Doug Vogt's flight was delayed and he didn't get into Atlanta until very late the night before. Maybe one of the other dingbats stood in for Vogt at the mock trial and she got all confused.

She so clearly wanted to play both Taitz and Vogt at the hearing, and hated the way he was handling his role.

As a "normal person" man on the street view - I felt that they were following their rules where the challenge was sent to GA, the SOS sends it to an ALJ for a recommendation. This was a fact finding hearing not a court. I feel that the government of GA heard the bullshit because one of the GA Reps was there. I feel they wanted to ensure a complete record, and you never know - one of them may come up with something actually real.

I tend to agree with the ALJ and the SOS in at least hearing all the complaints. No one could guarantee what would be presented (we all know about Orly). He heard all sides. The empty table gave the most truthful testimony. I feel this may be one of the tipping points as Orly's performance in other courts/hearings has been atrocious -but this was down south supposedly uberconservative Georgia where it was labeled bullshit. No offense to the citizens of GA, but y'all are having issues shall we say with the SovCit and other racist and RWInsaneJ organizations. The "GA Militia" having no connection to any government entity unlike the true militia, the National Guard can be one hell of a problem for the LEA.

No one can accuse the GA gov/justice system of not paying attention to its citizens. IMHO Orly's stuff is libelous and she should be disbarred at the very least (if not deported). It is a pile of disgusting lies. Only by allowing her to perform does it sink in that these folks are beyond the pale.

Indiana and especially PA were both prepared for her (things went rather quickly in PA).

From here on out - Orly and the rest have shown the Birfer cause to be a "big lie" without foundation.
This is going to make any of Orly's future cases totally moot. Now, if the different state SOSes have the power to reject this crap from the start, they have every reason they could possibly want to reject the whole bundle.

Shurfff Joe's open support of the birthers shows just how corrupt a justice system can be.
WND bought and paid Old Joe. It wasn't the bargain they thought it would be.
It has made Old Joe the Arizona Pariah, and has exposed the bullshit to public scrutiny to the general public outside the Birther Bubble.

If Old Joe wasn't so deaf, he would easily hear the laughter from coast to coast.

Thank you Judge Mahili for allowing citizens to be heard. It just "seems" fair to me.

Seems to be the standard way to deal with Orly is give her only the same amount of time as every one else, let her rant for the allotted time (unless the empty table or someone else (HI counsel) objects) then GTFOOMC - de9ed, finding for the empty table twice, No Not Yours, and dismissed. Then send the packet of shit to the prosecutor/AG for whatever is a violation of the law that was self admitted on an official record/transcript. Oh yes, further court hearings should include fees etc. It seems she stops short of contempt, but seems to lie (perjury?)....

Of course the questions I have is: Where is the Cal Bar??? Also, when will the judges start sanctioning her for her incompetent and seditious utterances (verbal and written)?

I know the lawyers here don't agree from a legal standpoint. I think with all the crap going on, this is going to be like several Tiberian Bats that hanging around their necks. IMHO it was a good thing to get the crap to the point where it is now virtually poison to anyone who has anything to do with it.

It is Orly's KISS-O-DEATH® for the GOP.

Very interesting discussion about the ALJ hearing, Judge Wright's DIsmissal, and the definition of "candidate". You guys know your stuff.

Seeing as how Birfers are like asian carp, they simply will not stop trying to get past the barriers (until they are exterminated...), what's to prevent them from filing ballot challenges in GA or IN or NH or elsewhere - for the General election ? In states that hold the definition of "candidate" applied by Judge Wright, would that not be a whole new chance to be a pest ? They still have no case based in fact or law, but 'winning' is not their motivation.
All they want to do is misuse the legal and admin. system to Smear and Pester the POTUS, as long as the birfer bucks hold out.
What's to stop them from that ?

You have to have "real evidence" first. They can file till the cows come home, but with their standard request for a STAY - leaving the candidates on the ballot, then need an extension, etc. Packed court calendar - It may get resolved by 2017. I am not a lawyer, but I read the Fogbow. Steep learning curve at first, but things make more sense as time passes.

A few nagging questions: Do we have any evidence that SoS Kemp was given a copy of the COLB?
If Malihi should have known the law, shouldn't Kemp have known as well and not referred the question to the ALJ?
Wasn't there a big difference in the empty table in GA and IN proceedings because of the burden
of proof? In IN, it was clearly on the challengers. In GA, the question was murky and unanswered.

It seems fair the me that a challenger should have the burden of proving someone unqualified just a plaintiff or a prosecutor in regular court cases. It bothers me that the Georgia election law seemed to reverse that burden.

IRReading somewhere that to reverse the burden takes a motion from the challenger. Hatfield made some big deal out of it in one of his whines somewhere on this board.

See...Linkey Linkey



The complete motion is at...Another ORYR spew

You can win every "battle", but still lose the election. Seem familiar???

Excellent candidate for quote of the year, IMO

And a most excellent replacement for the now trite IANAL also, too.

IANALBIRF???

Love acronyms. A holdover from government service.

IANALBIRF

Is kissing cousin to DickSantorum

Major improvement over IANAl which has always seemed to be an Acronym looking for a Defendant. I'm gonna use it.

IAALAIRFB

Foogie is merely on vacation, Mr. Haig.