Dean Haskins, director of The Birther Summit, was in Atlanta for the court hearing in the Georgia eligibility challenge last Thursday. His new article, GEORGIA HEARINGS — TWO OUT OF THREE AIN’T BAD is really rather interesting.
Probably the most important piece of information in the article is his clarification of what went on in the judge’s chambers before the hearing started. He wrote:
Prior to the start of the hearings on Thursday, the judge called the three attorneys who were present into his chambers and said that he could award them a default order because the defendant did not show up, but the attorneys stated that they would prefer to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record, in case there were any appeals.
Their having chosen to present evidence, therefore, precluded a default order, as such an order is awarded in the absence of any evidence being presented. The fact that evidence was presented means that Judge Malihi must make his recommendation based upon that evidence. …
According to Haskins, the “default judgment” widely anticipated based on earlier reports of the conference, isn’t going to happen. If Haskins has it right, it’s great news in my view because it means the judge will make a decision based on the merits and even if his decision is poorly reasoned, we’ll could get something definitive on appeal (I say “could” because an appeals court might rule that the Georgia Secretary of State has no authority to remove someone from the ballot and not address the merits).
In terms of the evidence presented, there was a long-form birth certificate showing Barack Obama was born in the United States, one Indonesian school document showing Barack Obama was born in the United States, one State Department internal memo from the 1970’s stating Barack Obama was born in the United States and a copy of the President’s passport showing his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. At no time did any attorney mention any evidence to indicate that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Orly Taitz only offered suspicions that various documents were fraudulent, but no alternate theory that would make the President ineligible. Judge Malihi is not going to rule that Barack Obama should be investigated for social security fraud — that’s completely outside his mandate and authority.
That leaves us (and this is I think where the title of Dean’s article comes from) with the two attorneys who made a Constitutional argument based on the widely-acknowledged fact that Barack Obama’s father was not a US Citizen.
As reported before, Dean Haskins is facing the wrath of Orly Taitz’s supporters for his well-founded criticism of her. This article wouldn’t be complete without including Dean’s version of the conversation he had with Orly Taitz (which he recounted to me in Atlanta):
Now, before proceeding with my report, let me say that, before Thursday, I had never personally met Orly Taitz. After she entered the courtroom, she approached the Media area, where I was standing with our live streaming equipment, and she asked, “Are you Dean Haskins?” I extended my hand and said, “Yes, how are you doing, Orly?” Without reciprocating the handshake, she stated, “I think it is about time for an apology,” to which I replied, “You can apologize to me anytime you want.” Through clenched teeth, Orly quietly seethed, “You’re a piece of sh*t. You shouldn’t even be here.” Classy.
Dean seemed to be a nice fellow. I can only hope that he will be convinced of his error should the courts rule against him.
