labtech wrote:
Technically, you're correct in that Ankeny was not dismissed for lack of standing, but for failure to state a claim, and Irion technically erred on that point in his lawsuit. The fact remains, however, that Ankeny's lawsuit was dismissed by the district court and the appeals court simply affirmed that dismissal. So the Indiana appeals court was not ruling on the merits or on arguments presented at a hearing, but merely opining on what Steve Ankeny alleged in his appeal.
As Piffle pointed out, the appellate court in Ankeny applied a
de novo standard of review. This means that they took a fresh look at the trial court's legal conclusions, and assessed the legal merits of Ankeny's position on their own.
The appeals court was reviewing an order dismissing Ankeny's case for failure to state a claim. That is, as Piffle and Bob have already pointed out, a decision that reaches the merits. To be precise, it is a decision that concludes that a case is entirely without merit. What it means is that the court has concluded that it is entirely unnecessary to have a trial or even a detailed evidentiary hearing because the plaintiff will necessarily lose the case even if they succeed in proving everything they claim they will prove. The trial court assumed that Ankeny's factual allegations were true, applied the law to those allegations, and concluded that Ankeny still could not obtain relief.
This is actually somewhat similar to what happened in Georgia. In the Georgia case, the defense declined to show up and argue. The plaintiffs were permitted to make their case and present their evidence without objection or opposition. ALJ Malihi the examined the uncontested evidence presented by the plaintiffs and concluded that the plaintiffs still lose as a matter of law. (IANL, but to me this implies that Malihi was clearly wrong when he denied the defense's motion to dismiss earlier in the case.)
Quote:
Judge Malihi in the Georgia Office of Administrative Hearings, however, did not dismiss Welden's case. Welden's case was argued by attorneys at trial, heard by Judge Malihi, and then ruled on by Malihi. Irion is claiming that this is the first birther case to ever reach the SCOTUS that was litigated by lawyers, heard by a judge, and issued a ruling prior to being dismissed by a higher court. Whether this is true or not, I don't know.
It may have been the first case to receive a hearing (but see above for my view on what the hearing actually accomplished), but it did not receive a trial. Judge Malihi is an administrative law judge, not a trial judge. His court is not the same as the trial courts. He does not hold trials, he holds hearings. The standards of evidence are less stringent in an administrative proceeding. And - again - even with relaxed standards of evidence and an empty chair opposing the plaintiffs, Judge Malihi still concluded that the plaintiffs must necessarily still lose their case as a matter of law.
As far as I can tell, the only real difference between the result in Ankeny and the result in Georgia was that the trial and appelate courts in Indiana assumed that Ankeny's factual allegations were true, while Judge Malihi decided to hold a public hearing and let the plaintiffs present that evidence. The Indiana courts preserved their dignity and applied the law. Judge Malihi presided over a circus and lost several hours of his life to a performance of the incompetent legal stylings of Hatfield, Irion, and Taitz. The outcome was the same - plaintiffs, as a matter of law, are not entitled to the relief they seek.
Login
Register
FAQ
x 3 
x 21
