After seeing how the hearing went (and assuming that Jablonski can and still will file a legal brief on the NBC issue), I think the decision to not show may have been more politically shrewd than I gave it credit for.

By not appearing, Jablonski wasn't put in the position of having to object. With no objections, the judge never had to sustain or deny any objections. Instead of being confrontational, the hearing flowed rather quickly. And it never became the circus that was feared, except when Orly *herself* acted the fool (the judge looked stunned when Orly started arguing that Obama was two people). Jablonski didn't need to present testimony or any evidence beyond the COLB, and he doesn't need the hearing to make a legal argument.

Plus, it's a preponderance of the evidence standard, and the plaintiffs themselves provided evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, and ZERO evidence that he was born anywhere else. Not even targeted speculation. So Jablonski probably doesn't even really *need* to enter the COLB at this point (although I wouldn't risk *not* doing so, after that letter).

How do we know this?

A couple of loose ends:

Did Jablonski forward an original certified copy of the COLB to the SOS?

If so, does the SoS still have it or was it returned?

Did Orly really file a motion for default prior to this mornings birtherpalooza?

Does Kemp look like a total A-hole yet?

Edit: and what about the "Commision?"

In hindsight... my view of mistakes that were made:

1. Jablonski's motion to quash was too long -- he should merely have filed a 3 pager.
2. Ditto the letter to the SOS. Should have limited it to 3 paragraphs, simply notifying Kemp that he would not be participating in the farce for stated reasons, rather than asking Kemp to do anything.

There was way too much unnecessary drama over this.

Though, concededly, great comedy. I felt the addition of an Oliver Hardy lookalike to the parade of witnesses helped set the comedic tone.

Birther point of view of the hearing:

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/?p=4138#more-4138

Not sure how full of shit this is, but probably full of said shit:




http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2012/01/exclusive-breaking-newsjudge-will-enter.html

From Give Us Liberty:

http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2012/01/exclusive-breaking-newsjudge-will-enter.html

The Crazy has reached new heights (found on FR)



http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2 ... enter.html

[on edit: damn Kimba & BilltheCat beat me!]

Why bother? The ALJ has no power to make a decision on Constitutional law, and in any case the time spent by lawyers arguing why the "Kim Wong Ark" case should be disregarded would certainly have alerted the ALJ to the controlling authority.

Why didn't the judge enter the default after the presentation of those streamlined cases?

It's tough for an attorney to be told he'll win if he shuts up, and he then says to the judge -- "No, judge, I'd rather talk. So please don't let me win."

If that was true, why the delay in the decision?

It sounds like

But, then again, whoda thunk this shindig woulda taken place to begin with?

Like all birthers, neither Wilmott nor Haskins are known for truthiness.

I can wait.

Yeah.... there is an outside possibility that the ALJ told the attorneys that he would hold that Jablonski has the burden of proof, and as he had not appeared, that if no evidence was put on ... he would then report that there was a failure of proof and recommend that Obama's name be stricken from the ballot.

To which they responded by introducing the COLB & LFBC & stipulating that both were bona fide.

So if Malihi ruled that the Indonesian school records were irrelevant, then I would guess that would mean that he is accepting the COLB entered into evidence as valid.

And up to now we had thought that Taitz might be the mole. Who knew?

WND: Georgia court told Obama slam-dunk disqualified

Oh the birther freakout that will happen when default is not entered.....

The job of the AJL is to find facts related to the case and report them. Most of the presentations before him were fact free other than the downloaded copies of the COLB and LFBC and those facts are easily verified.

Dean Haskins has also been known to relate fact free reports His recent reports regarding O'rly abuse of subpoenas and such were facts he got from visits to FB.

I seriously doubt the judge told the birfer lawyers he was going to enter a default judgement. I think that is way beyond his powers and would have no importance if he did. He would be laughed off the bench and have to go into hiding.

It's possible he offered them a default.

They didn't take it.

And he is upset at their circus he is changing his mind.

I think Diane Cotter (aka Danae) smells a rat...

Well sure, cuz every attorney I know who's told they have a win before a hearing then says no, I want to put on evidence that proves the case for the other side.

Of course, I'm sure rather than just enter a default judgment ALJ Malihi wanted to go ahead and put on a little dog and pony show.

I don't think he can enter a "default judgment" as that's not his authority, so I'm, let's say, *skeptical* of the report from Haskins. I'm sure if he's wrong it's just misunderstanding.

There might not have been birthers shouting, but there were enough clowns on the stand and at the plaintiffs table.

Had there been a decision issued today, it would have been New Hampshire, part deux.

A hearing where birthers spout their conspiracy theories about POTUS in a legal setting on the record is a circus.

Thanks--I think that account might be noteworthy due to the number of players who's names are misspelled...

The only way this case could have gotten sticky was if Taitz had tried to enforce her subpoenas of federal witnesses. That would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and it's taken seriously by the Justice Department.

Taitz thoughtfully "served" her subpoenas on the U.S. Attorney's office in Atlanta. (Like usual, she failed to make proper service, but then . . .) So the U.S. Attorney knew about at least two. (President Obama was served via Mr. Jablonski and an H&HS employee was purportedly served either personally or through his agency, not the USA's office.)

I would bet there was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the audience, carefully following the proceedings, and that if Taitz had sought to enforce the subpoenas (she didn't and she didn't ask the proceedings be continued to allow her to do so), that the case would have been immediately removed to federal court. (That was what I was hoping would happen to avoid a smear job.)

If there was a U.S. Attorney there, I hope s/he also noted the testimony about unlawful access to Mr. Obama's records and the crimes committed in doing so.

Yes. It does bother me that admitted crimes are going unnoticed.

Two part question for the attorneys here. I apologize if this has already been asked and answered.

If on the off chance the ruling should come down on the side of the birthers:

A. Wouldn't this be swiftly be overturned by a Georgia Superior Court or a Federal District Court? and...

B. Wouldn't this negatively impact ALJ Malihi's credibility, career prospects, and relationship with the Georgia Bar?

Thanks in advance