Georgia Ballot Challenge

Chilidog · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm **Posts:** 1999

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

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.

hmm, I wonder if that came up in the pre-hearing conference?

uncle_spike · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:58 pm

If a Judge is going to enter a default against the defendant, no way would anyone with any hint of higher brain function insist on arguing their case if the true intent was anything other than putting on a show.

Piffle · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:58 pm

There isn't going to be a "default judgment". Even the Lord High Deputy Chief ALJ knows he can't enter a default judgment.

If there's any truth whatsoever to be gleaned from these rumors, it is possible that the LHDCALJ fumbled around with some verbiage about how Team Jablonski has defaulted on opportunities to contest certain issues (more like procedurally based concessions than a case-wise default).

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this would be altogether consistent with his prior written rulings in this case. I think this may be the way he's wired: If you haven't given me conclusive legal cites and/or arguments to rule in your favor, you lose! It doesn't matter if my conclusion is good law or not, you still lose.

He's simply not ready for prime time.

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6735

Piffle wrote:

this would be altogether consistent with his prior written rulings in this case. I think this may be the way he's wired: If you haven't given me conclusive legal cites and/or arguments to rule in your favor, you lose! It doesn't matter if my conclusion is good law or not, you still lose.

He's simply not ready for prime time.

Maybe his impatience with Orly was because she didn't do the abbreviated summary he was expecting. He may not have used the words "default judgement", but based on what we've seen from him, it's possible he told them he was going to recommend in their favor because Obama didn't show. The guy seems to have a screw loose.

jtmunkus · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:04 pm

esseff44 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:04 pm

Stern wrote:

Quote:

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.

Federal crimes that were admitted to under oath on a witness stand! How could the US Attorney's keep ignoring these facts. Not when they are trying to stop identity theft and all kinds of cybercrime. They can't keep letting these folks keep speading the word about how easy it is to do and with impunity.

Malihi should feel obligated to point it out as well in his report to the SoS. Isn't evidence like this also called 'poisoned fruit?'

Tarrant · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:05 pm **Posts:** 795

kimba wrote:

Piffle wrote:

this would be altogether consistent with his prior written rulings in this case. I think this may be the way he's wired: If you haven't given me conclusive legal cites and/or arguments to rule in your favor, you lose! It doesn't matter if my conclusion is good law or not, you still lose.

He's simply not ready for prime time.

Maybe his impatience with Orly was because she didn't do the abbreviated summary he was expecting. He may not have used the words "default judgement", but based on what we've seen from him, it's possible he told them he was going to recommend in their favor because Obama didn't show. The guy seems to have a screw loose.

It is hard for me to believe that had they been offered a default judgment that one of them - most likely Orly, given her excitement - wouldn't have referred to such during their arguments.

PatGund · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:05 pm

Okay, fair is fair.

It went better than I was concerned about, and Jablonski's boycott may have had the intended effect of showing it to be the circus it was.

The predicted birther talking point that "Obama didn't challenge our claims so they're now FACTS in a COURT OF LAW" is annoying though.

I think if the Judge and the SOS are smart, they'll dismiss the claims and go soak in a vat of Lysol to try and get the stink of birther off of them. I'm not completely convinced they're that smart though.

That being said, I don't buy into Dean Haskins claim of a pre-trial "default judgement", since a lot of what I saw on the video seemed to argue against it. If the "fix was in" in such a way, why did Van Irion or Hatfield not object to the on-line copies of the long form and COLB being entered into the record?? Why was Dr. Orly so rule and abusive to her own witnesses?? I would have expected all of them to simply toss their claims into the record and do a victory lap around the courtroom if it was in the bag like that.

Still unhappy about the whole thing, but less annoyed about it than I was last night.

bob · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:05 pm

ORYR: Update: Obama's Georgia Ballot Hearing: Judge Wanted To Immediately Enter Default Judgment Against Obama

Quote:

Dean Haskins on the Scene at Hearing

As we are trying to get a quick lunch, and then do some interviews, this is just a very brief synopsis of what happened today. Before the hearing started, the judge called the attorneys into his chambers and explained that he was going to enter a default judgment in their favor. Attorneys Hatfield and Irion requested to be able to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record. At that point, Irion estimated he would need 20 minutes, Hatfield estimated he would need 30 minutes, and Taitz estimated she would need 2 hours.

Van Irion and Mark Hatfield made their arguments, and left. Taitz then presented her argument, calling several witnesses, until the judge asked her to make her closing statement. As her closing statement began, the judge asked if she was testifying, and, in an unconventional move, Taitz took the witness stand to testify. The judge finally asked her just to make her closing statement, which she did.

We believe that the default judgment automatically translates into the judge's recommendation to the Sec. Of State being that Obama should not appear on the ballot in Georgia.

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6735

Quote:

in an unconventional move, Taitz took the witness stand

Ok, if that's what they call it there in Georgia is "unconventional".

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3932

Curious Blue wrote:

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

I thought he looked more like Mr. Creosote from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life:

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9708

realist wrote:

kimba wrote:

From Give Us Liberty:

Quote:

Thursday, January 26, 2012
EXCLUSIVE! BREAKING NEWS!...JUDGE WILL ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST OBAMA...

BREAKING!! GAME ON!!!!—Eligibility Alert!

OBAMA JUST GOT PUNKED!
just got off the phone with Dean Haskins who was in the courtroom this morning assisting with the Art 2Pac live stream. Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obamaand recommend that Obama's name not be on the Georgia ballot! All of the attorneys expressed a desire to put an abbreviated streamlined case on the record and the judge agreed.

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

If this is anything other than a total steaming crock of shit, I'm Orly Taitz.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:10 pm

PatGund wrote:

The predicted birther talking point that "Obama didn't challenge our claims so they're now FACTS in a COURT OF LAW" is annoying though.

Yeah but if Jablonski had showed, and objected, you'd still hear "what's he hiding".

Six of one, half-dozen...

Also, I'm seeing all the Birfers tweeting and posting about the default that was already discussed.

So, if they don't get the decision they want, we're back to "someone got to Judge Carter Melihi".

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3932

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

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.

It's on the record. Under oath. She even courteously stated the exact *date* of her unlawful access, which would be handy in drawing up an indictment.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:12 pm

Haskins was not present in the judge's chambers when this supposedly took place. I am not sure any of the lawyers reporting out are competent to understand what the judge said or what it meant.

I am waiting for something with more credibility. I still can't believe an ALJ has the power to enter a default judgement before a hearing has taken place.

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:13 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

If this is anything other than a total steaming crock of shit, I'm Orly Taitz.

I thought it was your turn to be CEL III, I must have the old schedule.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23940

If Dean's account is true, Orly's not reporting it... yet. Or maybe she didn't even understand what ALJ Malihi said... dunno.

:evil:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30761 :evil:

I presented my case and gave interviews to all the major networks: CBS, NBC, ABC and so on. 6 witnesses testified to Obama’s use of a forged BS and a stolen SSN

Posted on | January 26, 2012 | No Comments

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5352

Non lawyer question, what is a default judgement? That the other side presented no counter arguments and therefore their side wins? Uh, wouldn't that be somewhat torpedoed by the fact that even Orly let the Hawai'in BC onto the record, therefore its Prima Facia evidence? Of course maybe she thought she was going to prove in her babble that it was a forgery and therefore irrelevant.

twinx · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:13 pm

Susan Daniels was questoned after the hearing.

The sound quality is bad but seems to improve after a minute or so.

Edited to fix link.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:14 pm

Orly: "I'm ready for my close-up..."

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:15 pm

PatGund wrote:

The predicted birther talking point that "Obama didn't challenge our claims so they're now FACTS in a COURT OF LAW" is annoying though.

Orly could have gotten on the stand and said anything she wanted, doesn't make her "testimony" factual in any sense of the word.

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:16 pm

JMHO but if the Judge said that in Chambers then he is a bigger idiot than we thought him to be. Not only can he not enter a "judgment" he can certainly not enter a "default judgment" all he can do is make recommendations to the SOS once the proposed FOF and COL have been received from the parties. Furthermre, in order for a "default judgment" to be entered it has to be done during the hearing and on the record, with the Judge's reasoning for doing so. If it is not in the transcript of the hearing then the person who wants to appeal has nothing in the transcript to submit to the relevant Court of Appeals (in this case it will eventually be the Superior Court of Fulton County > Court of Appeals > GA Supreme Court).

In addition who here thinks that if the Judge said any such thing that Orly and everyone else would not have been outside the Courtroom after the hearing telling everyone who would listen about it? Have we heard a peep about it from them? Nope.

Foggy · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:16 pm

OK, only read through p. 180, catch up later. I'm exhausted.

At lunch following the hearing, consensus was that Malihi is not a birther. He got his punishment for allowing the circus, but he didn't favor the birthers. Instead, he kept jumping in to stop the nonsense and move things along.

Strange that Hatfield -- arguably the best birther lawyer in this great land of ours -- didn't even try to give a closing. He left Irion's disjointed and rambling piece of shit as the only explanation of Vattelism.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9708

esseff44 wrote:

Haskins was not present in the judge's chambers when this supposedly took place. I am not sure any of the lawyers reporting out are competent to understand what the judge said or what it meant.

I am waiting for something with more credibility. I still can't believe an ALJ has the power to enter a default judgement before a hearing has taken place.

The ALJ does not have the power to enter a JUDGMENT period, much less a default judgment. The ALJ, who is operating solely by reference from the Secretary of State, can only issue a RECOMMENDATION. The ultimate decision is up to the Secretary of State, and even that is not a judgment as such. It also must be supported by the preponderance of competent and credible evidence, to quote the standard of review.

If the Secretary of State chooses to go rogue and break the law, he will be on the losing end of a state and/or federal lawsuit and the State of Georgia will have to pay the plaintiff's fees for a manifest and malicious abuse of discretion. If that dumb bastard wants to rumble, I wish him luck.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23940

Dean certainly thinks that's what happened... it's posted everywhere.

I can see being told you win, and as they report Van Irion and Hatfield stated, we'd like to make a brief record, but in my day the judge would have called the court reporter in and done so in chambers... a sort of proffer.

OR even if done in open court, a brief statement, submit on our papers, and the judge would have ruled from the bench.

I don' think he can enter a "default judgment" (at least no according to his task in this matter) but rather a recommendation Perhaps he didi tell them due to Jablonski not showing he was going to make a recommendation to not leave him on the ballot... who knows. We'll see.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Georgia Ballot Challenge

Who is online