Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
This is the second in my amateur legal series related to the case of Farrar v. Obama, a challenge to Barack Obama’s appearance on the March Georgia Presidential Preference primary ballot.
Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, argued unsuccessfully that the Georgia Preference Primary was not an election (since no one gets elected to anything as a result of it), but it was the free speech of people expressing their preference and not anyone running for office. Judge Malihi, who is hearing the complaint, did not agree and a hearing date has been set for the 26th of this month in Atlanta.
I’ve been looking over Orly Taitz’s published witness list and wondering if any of them would get to testify. Her “experts” would never pass a credentials challenge. The social-security number business seems irrelevant, just Orly having to promote her pet conspiracy theory. In fact, I haven’t seen anything admissible in court to support Farrar’s allegation that Obama is ineligible. So does Obama win by default?
So far Obama’s attorney hasn’t shown that he intends to mount much of a defense. He didn’t list any exhibits in his pre-trial order and only one witness, one that can’t speak to the facts of Obama’s birth. So what is zero plus zero? It looks like such an answer would be a lose for Obama because in a previous decision in O’BRIEN v. GROSS, Judge Malihi wrote:
Under Haynes v. Wells, 273 Ga. 106, 538 S.E.2d 430 (2000), the burden of proof is entirely upon Respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office.
My advice to Mr. Jablonski is to bring a birth certificate with him and maybe some documents to show Obama’s residence for the past 14 years. That way Obama looks just everybody else who sometimes has to show documentation.