Georgia Ballot Challenge

bob · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:45 pm

P&E: Georgia Ballot Hearing Concluded

There's a full write-up, but it is not particularly interesting. Of note:

Sharon Rondeau wrote:

Taitz utilized a projector on the wall to the right of the judge as an aid in her presentation. She then stated that evidence existed that Obama possessed Indonesian citizenship, to which the judge was heard by this writer to say, “That’s not relevant.” Taitz then discussed the court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett and was interrupted by the judge, who said, “Counselor, can you save your argument for the closing?” She then stopped speaking.

1. Obama's "foreign citizenship" isn't relevant?
2. Rondeau was might have been there.

Edit: 2.5 Or Rondeau heard that on the suck-eggs feed.

Litlebritdifrnt2 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:46 pm

I have to say that I cannot wait to see Orly's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, they should be spectacular!

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6640

A noontime report from the courthouse on NBC Atlanta with a hat-tip to the Anti-birthers in the hearing room:

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/224453/40/Judge-considers-whether-to-keep-Obama-on-ballot

Roboe · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:47 pm

majorbabs wrote:

everalm wrote:

Chilidog wrote:

Please tell me STRUNK, CHRISTOPHER is going all Sov Cit on us. . . please. . .

Orly kicked him off in less than 60 seonds, no Sov Cit goodness alas

If Orly is to be believed, she she spent over $8000 dollars to bring Daniels, Strunk, Jordan, Vogt, Chito and Sampson to testify for a few minutes each. I certainly don't think she got her money's worth.

All the more hilarious that she appeared to get into an argument with Voigt =))

And what on earth ws Christopher: Strunk In Esse there for? It looked liked he went on the stand, stated that he was a legal fiction, said one or two sentences, and was then dismissed.

Shagnastie · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:49 pm

Well, we don't have the full shake-out yet, but somewhat anti-climatic pour moi, after all the pre-hearing angst evoked here. Hope everyone got at least some degree of satisfaction.

If nothing else, someone should have developed some good material for the next Bulwer-Lytton Competition ...

"It was a dark and stormy chamber; the xhibits fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of Malihi which swept up the skirts (for it is in Atlanta that our scene lies), rattling along the Yahoos, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the Birfers that struggled against the Usurper."

'Speshul thanks to Foggy and all those who attended or provided commentary. =D>

bob · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:49 pm

Roboe wrote:

And what on earth ws Christopher: Strunk In Esse there for?

To "authenticate" the documents received in response to his FOIA request about Obama's mother.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:49 pm

That's fun. I wonder if any Fogbowers met her?

I'm getting database error for P&E.

bob wrote:

P&E: Georgia Ballot Hearing Concluded

There's a full write-up, but it is not particularly interesting. Of note:

Sharon Rondeau wrote:

Taitz utilized a projector on the wall to the right of the judge as an aid in her presentation. She then stated that evidence existed that Obama possessed Indonesian citizenship, to which the judge was heard by this writer to say, “That’s not relevant.” Taitz then discussed the court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett and was interrupted by the judge, who said, “Counselor, can you save your argument for the closing?” She then stopped speaking.

1. Obama's "foreign citizenship" isn't relevant?
2. Rondeau was there.

John Thomas8 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:50 pm

Not saying this is true, just popping it out here for verification:

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

The "cognizant" portion:

I 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 Obama and recommend that Obama's name not be on the Georgia ballot!

I figure you folks know the ins and outs of the mentally unstable fringe and you've already whacked these 'tards.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23596

John Thomas8 wrote:

Not saying this is true, just popping it out here for verification:

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

The "cognizant" portion:

I 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 Obama and recommend that Obama's name not be on the Georgia ballot!

Been posted upthread...

Orly's client Farrar is also making the same claim... also posted upthread.

Orly has not stated so yet, but who knows.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:52 pm

David Farrar wrote:

David Farrar

January 26th, 2012 at 2:33 pm
We have won our case. The Judge is going to declare a default judgement against Obama. In order for Obama to get his name on the Georgia ballot, he will have to actually sue the Secretary of State and win on appeal — not likely.
ex animo
davidfarrar

Assuming that the SOS keeps Obama's name off the primary ballot (or rather, doesn't count the votes), Obama has an excellent lawsuit. One that he will win and that will be upheld by the appellate courts. I can certainly identify two or three federal claims, so this could be brought in the United States District Court and fast-tracked through the Eleventh Circuit.

I think this is the strategy that Jablonski plans to execute.

Obama will be on the Georgia ballot for the general election -- not that he could carry the state, but he will have an opportunity to win the electoral votes.

everalm · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:53 pm

kimba wrote:

A noontime report from the courthouse on NBC Atlanta with a hat-tip to the Anti-birthers in the hearing room:

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/224453/40/Judge-considers-whether-to-keep-Obama-on-ballot

Is that hair on Orlys head or is she getting her wigs from "Donalds Dead Rats to the Stars"....... #-o

*NADT*

bob · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:54 pm

kimba wrote:

A noontime report from the courthouse on NBC Atlanta with a hat-tip to the Anti-birthers in the hearing room:

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/224453/40/Judge-considers-whether-to-keep-Obama-on-ballot

FOGBLOW.

Slartibartfast · **Joined:** Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm **Posts:** 1557

mimi wrote:

He is Orly's client.

I know. I would love to hear what the HLMALJ said that all of these people are interpreting as saying he was going to register a default judgement. I'm starting to smell a rat--I think the birthers have been played by Malihi, Kemp, and Jablonski. J sends his letter to K asking him to cancel and saying he'll stay home in any case, K seizes the opportunity to say "we're doing it anyway" and gets vaguely threaty, and M tells the parties something before the hearing that gets their hopes up and encourages them to be as brief as possible with their zibits and pleadings. Combine that with Loren's description of M's body language as "bored and annoyed" and I think the birthers just got served. and they think they've won.

Seriously, you could not make this shit up...

](*,)

PatGund · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:56 pm

Loren wrote:

Whatever4 wrote:

I think the judge told the lawyers that he was noting that the defense was absent and lost their chance to object in court, that he was entering that into the record. That's what Deano must have been talking about.

Here's the thing: everyone's citing Dean as their source on this. Dean obviously wasn't in the judge's chambers, but there's no indication who HE heard it from. An attorney? A plaintiff? A spectator? The more removed this is from someone physically present in the room, the more it turns into a game of telephone.

Orly isn't talking like there's a default, and the other attorneys left after the break. So unless he got the information from Orly, Dean 'knew' this when the hearings ended. And we all spoke to Dean, and he didn't say anything about a default.

Well, Vogt is now claiming Dr. Orly told him the same thing, but it's hard to say if this is a "me too" thing.

obot 1024 · **Joined:** Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:25 pm **Posts:** 639

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Obama will be on the Georgia ballot for the general election -- not that he could carry the state, but he will have an opportunity to win the electoral votes.

Electoral college is winner take all except for Nebraska & Maine which do so by Congressional district (Obama won 1 electoral vote from NE)

Slartibartfast · **Joined:** Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm **Posts:** 1557

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

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

Oh, I think Judge Malihi said something--it just did not mean what they think it means...

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3898

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Mr. Jablonski still has an arrow in his quiver.

It's what Loh, Butterfly and I would have done had we been in his shoes.

More tomorrow, including the reason why it has to be tomorrow, tomorrow.

Well...it's tomorrow.

?

burriana · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:01 pm

Hello everyone,

First time post but been lurking for a while. Have just been checking out FR and noticed that Butter is experiencing a collapsing paradox bomb with a side of inherent logical contradictions.....

To: null and void
What he posted online can’t be proof positive of anything - unless it’s actually at least accurate, and since it’s not genuine we have no way of knowing whether it’s accurate or not.

That’s the concern that Sven has. The attorneys weren’t using an “even if” argument: EVEN IF Obama’s documentation was accurate, he wouldn’t be NBC. It seems to me they were saying that his alleged documentation IS accurate, and that’s the reason for Sven’s concern.

If they presented Obama’s claims as simply being Obama’s claims, then wouldn’t it be the job of the judge to establish the facts of the case before actually deciding the matters of law? I’ve read a case where the judge said that they can’t argue cases on an “even if” basis. The case has to be decided on the basis of findings of facts.

What am I misunderstanding here? Were they arging that “even if” Obama’s BC’s are accurate he wouldn’t be eligible, or were they arguing that SINCE Obama’s BC’s are accurate he’s not eligible?

It’s an important distinction, I think. And it’s why some of us were saying that without a genuine birth certificate the NBC argument couldn’t even be made because there is no evidence that Obama’s father WAS Obama Sr.

687 posted on 26 January 2012 19:56:41 GMT by butterdezillion

Curious Blue · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:02 pm

Loren wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Mr. Jablonski still has an arrow in his quiver.

It's what Loh, Butterfly and I would have done had we been in his shoes.

More tomorrow, including the reason why it has to be tomorrow, tomorrow.

Well...it's tomorrow.

?

It wasn't necessary. Not sure whether Stern will post a clarifying message or not.

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5254

On the Deano call first off it came from Apuzzo, who NEVER inflates or makes up BS to put himself in the story. Second they were in Judges chambers for 30 minutes so they had to be discussing something.

Expelliarmus on Doc C's puts up as good a theory as any.

Quote:

Expelliarmus January 26, 2012 at 1:47 pm (Quote) #

RANK SPECULATION: The lawyers arrived and were called into chambers. The ALJ told them that it he intended to rule that Obama’s lawyer had the burden of proof to show qualifications for office, and as the lawyer had not appeared — that the present state of the evidence would not support Obama’s eligibility. ALJ suggests, strongly, that attorneys might want to simply rest their case & go home.

Instead, attorneys say they want to present their evidence quickly, to preserve the record..

They open by immediately submitting the COLB downloaded from the internet. ALJ, incredulous, asks if they are accepting it as a genuine, certified copy of Obama’s birth record — they agree & the COLB is thus admitted. They follow by doing the same thing with the LFBC.

Birther lawyers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRBkgshj8Cw

Chilidog · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm **Posts:** 1971

Loren wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Mr. Jablonski still has an arrow in his quiver.

It's what Loh, Butterfly and I would have done had we been in his shoes.

More tomorrow, including the reason why it has to be tomorrow, tomorrow.

Well...it's tomorrow.

?

I think he discussed it about 8 pages ago.

Something about removing it to a federal court.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:06 pm

everalm wrote:

kimba wrote:

A noontime report from the courthouse on NBC Atlanta with a hat-tip to the Anti-birthers in the hearing room:

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/224453/40/Judge-considers-whether-to-keep-Obama-on-ballot

Is that hair on Orlys head or is she getting her wigs from "Donalds Dead Rats to the Stars"....... #-o

*NADT*

Maybe she borrowed it from Gary Kreep?

esseff44 · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:07 pm

Another daily user record was just broken.

Quote:

WHO WAS HERE?
In total there were 963 users online :: 203 registered, 14 hidden and 746 guests (based on users active over the past 24 hours)
Most users ever online was 968 between Wed 25. Jan 2012 and Thu 26. Jan 2012

The default rumor is bound to send more lurkers before the day is over.

Res Ipsa · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:08 pm

Loren wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Mr. Jablonski still has an arrow in his quiver.

It's what Loh, Butterfly and I would have done had we been in his shoes.

More tomorrow, including the reason why it has to be tomorrow, tomorrow.

Well...it's tomorrow.

?

I propose a deal, Loren. You provide the docs you have, and Stern answers your question. I'll hold both in escrow pending performance at both ends.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:09 pm

PatGund wrote:

Loren wrote:

Whatever4 wrote:

I think the judge told the lawyers that he was noting that the defense was absent and lost their chance to object in court, that he was entering that into the record. That's what Deano must have been talking about.

Here's the thing: everyone's citing Dean as their source on this. Dean obviously wasn't in the judge's chambers, but there's no indication who HE heard it from. An attorney? A plaintiff? A spectator? The more removed this is from someone physically present in the room, the more it turns into a game of telephone.

Orly isn't talking like there's a default, and the other attorneys left after the break. So unless he got the information from Orly, Dean 'knew' this when the hearings ended. And we all spoke to Dean, and he didn't say anything about a default.

Well, Vogt is now claiming Dr. Orly told him the same thing, but it's hard to say if this is a "me too" thing.

Exactly. It all goes back to Orly "I can have him out of the office in 30 days" Taitz.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Georgia Ballot Challenge

Who is online