Here’s the video from yesterday’s hearing via YouTube. I’m the fellow in the tan jacket lower left in all the shots. Some of the feed before the trial started is not included here including what I understand was an obscene remark from Orly Taitz to Dean Haskins.
The audio is crummy.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
I’ve been reading the comments over at the Columbus Ledger Enquirer. I got entangled with ksdb, someone I seem to recall is banned here. ksdb was arguing that Minor v. Happersett was a precedent making Obama ineligible, because his father wasn’t a citizen, and also said that Virginia Minor was ruled NOT a 14th Amendment citizen by the Court. I replied:
The court didn’t say Minor wasn’t a 14th amendment citizen. That’s absurd. What they said was that the 14th amendment, didn’t create a right to vote. Before the 14th Amendment, the Constitution was silent on who was and who was not a citizen (except through the definition of natural born citizen based on English Common Law, which the Court in Smith v Alabama said was where to look for definitions of terms not defined in the Constitution, common law that said natural born subjects were those born in the country without regard for the status of the parents).
If you read Minor, the court said that based on the Constitution there were exactly two classes of citizen: natural born and naturalized. The court said that it was unquestionably so that those born of citizen parents in the country were natural born citizens. It then said that whether the children of aliens born in the country were citizens or not was in dispute. Since it was not necessary to consider the case of the children of aliens, the court didn’t go there. However, the distinction remains, either natural born or naturalized. Virginia Minor was natural born because she met the undoubted criteria of being born in the country to citizen parents.
[The] Supreme Court, in US v Wong in 1898 decided that the children of aliens born in the country ARE US citizens, and so by the two citizenship classes [in] Minor, they must be natural born, since they aren’t naturalized.
I guess that I must mention that every legal scholar in history has said the same thing. Before the crank theory of Leo Donofrio, no one in the history of the United States ever said that someone born a citizen in the United States was not a natural born citizen. Some, before Wong, argued that they were not citizens, but all understood that if they were, they could run for President.
Based on the judicial rules in Georgia, there are a range of actions a judge may take upon default by a participant in an action. For details, see my article: Default in Georgia. Indeed if Judge Malihi was quoted fairly and accurately by two plaintiffs, he said Obama was in default because his attorney didn’t show up. In a default the judge could have ruled in favor of plaintiffs and prevented any further participation in the process by Obama’s attorney.
That extreme appears not to be the case based on the Judge’s order today that says:
The parties may file any post hearing pleadings by Wednesday, February 1, 2012. The Court will issue a recommendation to the Secretary of State shortly thereafter.
I am reading the choice of the word “parties” (instead of of “plaintiffs”) to mean that the defendant may make a post hearing pleading. I also read this as saying that the Judge is not committed to a ruling against Obama just because his attorney defaulted.
In the same order, the Judge said the same thing that the Judge said in Hawaii, Georgia cannot compel Hawaii to produce documents. Sorry Orly, no birth certificate for you.
I’m not ready to say “yes” to that question, but one journalist, Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal Constitution gives reason think perhaps he did. In an article titled, “Some cold water on over-heated birther mania,” Bookman wrote:
Until I sat in that courtroom yesterday, I wasn’t sure why the Obama legal team had chosen not to appear. But in hindsight, they were right. Showing up to refute the nonsense presented would have given the birther arguments a dignity they do not deserve. You cannot refute air and sheer fantasy. How many times can an opposing lawyer say, in so many words, “Your honor, this is just really and truly stupid”?
Rather than blaming the judge or Secretary Kemp for yesterday’s circus, Bookman puts the blame on the “foolish conspiracy mongers, ” and concludes that Obama will unquestionably be on the November ballot in Georgia.
Further reading:
I would have preferred that Obama’s attorney had showed up this morning in Atlanta to make a vigorous defense and say all those things I was itching to say. I would have liked to have seen the COLB up close and personal. It didn’t happen.
Speculation abounds and many are ready to claim victory. Some are ready to throw Jablonski under the bus.
I don’t know the whole story. I don’t know Obama’s plans, but I would admit that whoever is making those plans is probably a lot more savvy than I am, both legally and politically. So I’m going to try not to jump to conclusions and I’m going to try not to second guess the defense. I would certainly have liked to see some resolution, but these conspiracy theories never get resolved, really.
In the meantime, a new poll shows Obama’s lead over any potential Republican rival growing.
Local Atlanta TV station WXIA-11 was at the Georgia ballot challenge this morning and they interviewed Orly Taitz and Bill Bryant (Fogbow Foggy)! Here’s the full story and following is a short video.
“This whole birther movement is a pack of lies from beginning to end,” said Bill Bryan of North Carolina.
“I think today’s hearing was an embarrassment to the state of Georgia that they would even have a hearing like this. It’s all based on claims to delegitimize the president.”
Birther sources are saying that Judge Malihi informed counsel that he was entering a default against Barack Obama on the grounds that Obama’s attorney didn’t show up. They say the plaintiffs requested a brief time to get their case on the record.
There are two plaintiffs represented by two attorneys who are saying this and for the time being, I’ll assume that it is true.
However, I’m not sure exactly what a default order means in this case. The rule says:
Any default order may provide for a default as to all issues, a default as to specific issues, or other limitations, including limitations on the presentation of evidence and on the defaulting party’s continued participation in the proceeding. After issuing a default order, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed as necessary to resolve the case without the participation of the defaulting party, or with such limited participation as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate, and shall determine all issues in the proceeding, including those affecting the party in default.
So this is still wait and see.
The debunker's guide to Obama conspiracy theories
© 2012 Obama Conspiracy Theories. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by WordPress. Designed by 
Recent Comments