I

If she gives Obama a ring he might stop by on AF1 and pick her up on his way there

Soooooooooooo... do we have any Obot boots on the ground in Indiana who can attend the hearing?

Here are the relevant procedures regarding non appearance and potential default (bolding and underlining mine)....

IC 4-21.5-3-24
Default or dismissal
Sec. 24. (a) At any stage of a proceeding, if a party fails to:
(1) file a responsive pleading required by statute or rule;
(2) attend or participate in a prehearing conference, hearing, or other stage of the proceeding; or
(3) take action on a matter for a period of sixty (60) days, if the party is responsible for taking the action;
the administrative law judge may serve upon all parties written notice of a proposed default or dismissal order, including a statement of the grounds.
(b) Within seven (7) days after service of a proposed default or dismissal order, the party against whom it was issued may file a

written motion requesting that the proposed default order not be imposed and stating the grounds relied upon. During the time within which a party may file a written motion under this subsection, the administrative law judge may adjourn the proceedings or conduct them without the participation of the party against whom a proposed default order was issued, having due regard for the interest of justice and the orderly and prompt conduct of the proceedings.
(c) If the party has failed to file a written motion under subsection (b), the administrative law judge shall issue the default or dismissal order. If the party has filed a written motion under subsection (b), the administrative law judge may either enter the order or refuse to enter the order.
(d) After issuing a default order, the administrative law judge shall conduct any further proceedings necessary to complete the proceeding without the participation of the party in default and shall determine all issues in the adjudication, including those affecting the defaulting party. The administrative law judge may conduct proceedings in accordance with section 23 of this chapter to resolve any issue of fact.
As added by P.L.18-1986, SEC.1.

A default is hardly the end, as now the Judge shall determine all issues in the adjudication, including those affecting the defaulting party...

Absolutely. I simply limited the answer to the scope of the question that was asked.

I am about 2 hours away. What time is the hearing?

Crap! 9 AM! Will have to go the night before and get a room. Not that I mind, the Hilton on W. Market is really nice. Could do lunch after the hearing at the Weber Grill. Killer beercan chicken.

There are a lot of other challenges to be dealt with tink. Given the personalities involved this might be held over til last. Either way, enjoy your lunch, beercan chicken sounds good, bit too far to travel from Uk or UAE for me though

Here are the relevant procedures regarding non appearance and potential default (bolding and underlining mine)....

IC 4-21.5-3-24
Default or dismissal
Sec. 24. (a) At any stage of a proceeding, if a party fails to:
(1) file a responsive pleading required by statute or rule;
(2) attend or participate in a prehearing conference, hearing, or other stage of the proceeding; or
(3) take action on a matter for a period of sixty (60) days, if the party is responsible for taking the action;
the administrative law judge may serve upon all parties written notice of a proposed default or dismissal order, including a statement of the grounds.
(b) Within seven (7) days after service of a proposed default or dismissal order, the party against whom it was issued may file a

written motion requesting that the proposed default order not be imposed and stating the grounds relied upon. During the time within which a party may file a written motion under this subsection, the administrative law judge may adjourn the proceedings or conduct them without the participation of the party against whom a proposed default order was issued, having due regard for the interest of justice and the orderly and prompt conduct of the proceedings.
(c) If the party has failed to file a written motion under subsection (b), the administrative law judge shall issue the default or dismissal order. If the party has filed a written motion under subsection (b), the administrative law judge may either enter the order or refuse to enter the order.
(d) After issuing a default order, the administrative law judge shall conduct any further proceedings necessary to complete the proceeding without the participation of the party in defaultand shall determine all issues in the adjudication, including those affecting the defaulting party. The administrative law judge may conduct proceedings in accordance with section 23 of this chapter to resolve any issue of fact.
As added by P.L.18-1986, SEC.1.[/quote]

Thanks for the help. So this is another ALJ hearing. Under subsection (d), am I correct thinking the ALJ can't automatically offer a default win like Malihi did in GA? The judge must still consider everything (zihbits, ebidence, rantings) presented to him before he's allowed to make a final judgement?

Notwithstanding the part of the IN code quoted in the notice,this is not an ALJ hearing as such. It is a hearing by the bi-partisan (2 Republicans, 2 Democrats) Election commission.

Actually, it's a public meeting of the Election Commission concerning a number of matters.

Here's the agenda, which should give a good idea about what kind of things are going on. There's a Chairman and members. It isn't so much a formal evidentiary hearing as an opportunity for interested members of the public to share their views. The ultimate decision (at least at this stage) is up to the Election Commission and its members.

The hearing will address matters other than the challenges, including a report on voting machines that I think looks interesting.

I'd offer to go, but the Soros limos won't pick up outside the 500-mile limit & the jet fuel would be too expensive (I'd rather see Mr. Soros put that money into the new SuperDuperObamaTriplePAC anyway).

So, I shall stand by and .

Thanks WD. This is basically a state election board hearing. That's what I thought. I was befuddled for a moment. So why is Taitz screeching the President would have to show or default?

Because she's batshit crazy. That's actually a good answer for most questions beginning "So why does Orly. . ."

All those challenges in less than two hours? That doesn't give Orly much time.

Reminds me of why did the turtle cross the road? To prove to the raccoons it could be done.
She needs to be less like that raccoon.

You mean they might not let her feeneesh?

I'm beginning to fantasize about Orly flying to Indiana, the commission doesn't get to the her before it adjorns until Monday so she has to fly back to CA for her candidates forum then back to IN only to told she can't speak because she's not licensed in IN!

IANAL and yes she's batshit crazy......but seems to me that, to be fair, she hasn't just pulled this claim out of her rear end this time.

Whether this actually is to be a 'hearing' as such or not, the notice sent to Obama by the Election Division on 17 February certainly describes it as a hearing intended to determine the merits of the challenge and very clearly draws his attention to the fact that non appearances are dealt with under the specific numbered section of the IC that we have already cut and pasted into the thread. If that's not what they intend to do they shouldn't be saying that in their notices.

If I received that notice I'd assume (without indulging in the hype and exaggeration of the actual provisions which Taitz tends to add) that it was a hearing to establish the merits of the challenge and that non appearance would be dealt with under the provisions of the specific section of the code that they have drawn to my attention in the notice they have sent me. In fact it's hard to understand why a recipient of such a notice wouldn't or shouldn't assume that to be the case.

I've been skimming through the past Election Commission transcripts to get a feel for how they handle challenges and the transcript for 5th March 2010 contains the hearings of challenges for the 2010 primaries. It's a long read - 300 pages and I've only speed read it but the messages I'm getting are:-

1) They do allow counsel or others to speak on challengers' behalf;
2) There is no ALJ present;
3) The Commissioners are very pro-active in asking questions;
4) They dispose of rubbish quicky;
5) They do sometimes split on Party lines;
6) In event of a tied vote the candidate stays on the ballot.


http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/IEC_Minutes03_05_10.pdf

But, but but....

Is the Indiana Primary any different than any of the other primaries. Is the Party the Defendant or is it the President?

The terminology is challenger and candidate

I've been maintaining all along that the Georgia administrative code says exactly the same thing as in Indiana -- that, even if ALJ Malihi had issued the threatened default order, it would not have meant an automatic win for the complainants. Even after issuing the default order, my belief is that he would have made his decision based on the written submissions plus whatever he wanted to take notice of, and the outcome would have been exactly the same. There was never a "default win" at play.

I think he was hoping to issue a default order to avoid the hearing altogether and rule on the papers. When the complainants demurred, he said "OK, but make it quick."

I really believe that this point has been widely misunderstood.

Either that, or it's been badly misunderstood by me.