Main Menu

Farrar v. _____

This is the first of two articles I’m writing about this morning’s eligibility hearing in Atlanta. In this one, I’ll share my impressions and analysis of what happened. The second article will be about a few face-to-face discussions I had.

What just happened here?

In a nutshell, three administrative challenges were presented to a Georgia administrative law judge, Michael Malihi. The challengers claim that Barack Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Barack Obama, the named defendant, did not show up and his counsel did not show up. The whole business took about 2 hours and at the end the judge said simply: “this concludes the hearing.”

I would estimate around 100 people were in the courtroom and I was told that about 25 more were in an overflow room where they could hear and view the proceedings. There was a lot of press coverage, at least 10 and probably more with video cameras rolling. What you could not see was the large number of uniformed security guards at the hearing (maybe 8) and what appeared to be at least 4 other non-uniformed official-looking persons.

The first plaintiff was Mr. Weldon represented by Mr. Irion. Testimony was pretty simple. It was established that the plaintiff was a registered voter in Georgia, and that President Obama’s father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was not a US citizen. The plaintiff offered in evidence the White House PDF of the President’s long form birth certificate for the purpose of identifying who the President’s father was and that the father was born in Kenya. After the quick testimony, Mr. Irion made his closing argument, which said in essence that the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett established a precedent defining natural born citizen (a qualification of a US President) to be someone born in the country of citizen parents. He then said that whatever the Supreme Court might have said to the contrary later in US v. Wong was dicta. I considered his remarks as more of a popular argument than a legal one.

I give Mr. Irion points for being succinct; however, I don’t think the judge appreciated a lawyer explaining to him the difference between holding and dicta. Mr. Irion’s visual aids were abysmally bad after the first Venn diagram. It was all huge blocks of dense text that the judge couldn’t see because they were pointed away from him and the spectators couldn’t see because it was too small.

The second plaintiff, represented by Mr. Hatfield, presented an even shorter case. As in the first it was established that the plaintiff was a Georgia voter and the Barack Obama’s father was not a US Citizen. That was all. No argument was made.

At that point, the court took a break and all the previous plaintiffs quickly exited the courtroom. One may legitimately ask why they had no interest in the rest of the hearing.

Next up, Orly Taitz. It was pretty bad. Orly opened up by turning her back on the judge and addressing the spectators, only to be immediately stopped by the judge, who told her to address the court. (She didn’t make that mistake again.) Then she tried to play the video (without any introduction) of a TV clip from Inside Edition where the Indonesian school registration in the name “Barry Soetoro” first appeared. The judge interrupted and said “I don’t need to see the video.” (You couldn’t see it on the live feed, but right before that a man who looked very much like Obiwan Kenobi waved his hand and said, “You don’t need to see the video.”)

It appeared that she had not prepared her witnesses. In fact after calling each witness, none of them were asked to state their name. Some interrupted Orly to state their name before answering the first question. At one point she was actually arguing with Mr. Vogt, the scanner expert trying to get him to say that one particular aspect of the long form birth certificate PDF was irregular, with Vogt repeating, “No, that’s normal.” She kept having trouble with her projected documents, saying “scroll up, up, up, up, no, down, down, down.”

The judge stopped Orly at various times to tell her to present her evidence and THEN her closing argument and one point he asked her whether she was testifying or arguing, at which time Orly ran up to the witness chair, raised her hand and got sworn in, and continued her talk. After a couple of minutes the obviously exasperated judge told her to get on with her closing argument and she left the witness chair.

It is clear that Orly Taitz is an utterly incompetent attorney who did not do even minimal preparation for this hearing.

What did Orly actually present?

Unless you were already well-informed on the topic, you probably couldn’t make much sense out of Orly’s case given the disconnected and confusing presentation. But what she presented with her witnesses Susan Daniels, Linda Jordan, Douglas Vogt, Christopher Strunk, John Sampson (former INS agent), Felicito Papa (IT professional) came down to:

  1. Obama’s security-security number is a particular number she cited.
  2. That social-security number is associated with Connecticut
  3. That social-security number is not matched on an SSA system as of 2011.
  4. The long form birth certificate PDF released by the White House has layers that her witnesses find suspicious.
  5. It looks suspicious that some information from Lolo Soetoro’s immigration file is redacted.

In what I find a great irony, while Obama’s attorney Jablonski did not appear, and he did not submit the President’s birth certificate, plaintiffs’ counsel did. A birth certificate showing Barack Obama born in Hawaii was submitted into evidence. Not only that, an Indonesian school registration form that says Barack Obama was born in Hawaii was submitted into evidence.

What didn’t happen.

The big thing that didn’t happen was an appearance by Barack Obama or his attorney, hence the title of this article, Farrar v. ______.

At no point at the proceeding did any plaintiff assert that Barack Obama was born outside the United States. Orly painted Obama as having a fraudulent social-security number, and hiding records. She said his birth certificate was a phony. She argued that original documents should be gotten and that an investigation should ensue, but she never once suggested that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii. No fake Kenyan birth certificate saw the light of day. Several pieces of evidence presented by the plaintiffs provided documentation that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Another thing that didn’t happen was objections. The judge only once stopped Orly Taitz on a question of relevance. Otherwise the birthers had their way to introduce things without foundation or relevance and to present conclusions without proper foundation or expertise. If Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney, had showed up, he would have been obliged to raise an objection, literally every two minutes. If Jablonski had been there, the thing would have run all day.

The crowd was utterly respectful of the proceeding and there were no outbursts or applause at any point. Even Orly Taitz was respectful to the judge and did not utter her trademark, “let me feeeneesh!”

The Judge

Anyone who claims that judge Michael Malihi is a “closet birther” will find no support for that contention in today’s hearing. What we all saw was someone who wanted to speed the hearing along. He offered no support and no help to plaintiffs’ counsel. At best he tolerated them and to this observer just wanted to get it over with.

My impressions

I thought I while watching the hearing: “this is a bad birther web site.” It bothered me that there was no one there to object to obvious misstatements and unwarranted conclusions on the part of the witnesses. It bothers me that the video record of the hearing will be one-sided. It bothers me that a layman watching the video will have a hard time understanding why the judge rules against the plaintiffs should that happen because they only see one side.

After the hearing, Orly was hamming it up before the TV cameras.

IMG_0355

Update:

A considerable number of comments to this article relate to the issue of “default judgment.” Judge Malihi wrote this in his decision released later:

Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.30(1) and (5). Nonetheless, despite the Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request.

, , , , ,

86 Responses to Farrar v. _____

  1. avatar
    J. Potter January 26, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    Thanks for the on-scene reporting, Doc! :D

  2. avatar
    Majority WIll January 26, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

    “It is clear that Orly Taitz is an utterly incompetent attorney who did not do even minimal preparation for this hearing.”

    She must not have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

  3. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 26, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    “A birth certificate showing Barack Obama born in Hawaii was submitted into evidence. Not only that, an Indonesian school registration form that says Barack Obama was born in Hawaii was submitted into evidence.”

    Dr. C., to be fair as you do try to be, it should be stated that these exhibits are facsimiles thereof, not original / primary evidence.

  4. avatar
    Obsolete January 26, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Dr. C., to be fair as you do try to be, it should be stated that these exhibits are facsimiles thereof, not original / primary evidence

    But the plaintiffs did not dispute the evidence contained therein. They used them as proof that Obama Sr. was from Kenya.

  5. avatar
    bovril January 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    Actuallly Sally, no relevance, Orly et-al accepted them into evidence as factual without objection,

    So, they are, for the purposes of this HEARING good to go.

  6. avatar
    The Magic M January 26, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

    Wonder how birther sites will spin this. All they have will be “we said it was all forged and no-one there refuted us”.

  7. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm #

    bovril: Actuallly Sally, no relevance, Orly et-al accepted them into evidence as factual without objection,

    Then why did she issue a subpoena for primary evidence? I beg to differ with you.
    Fraudulence was the underpinning theme for the entire hearing.

  8. avatar
    Boone Larson January 26, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    Birther websites are reporting other conclusions:

    “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.”

    Dean Haskins

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-ballot-hearing-judge-wanted-to.html

  9. avatar
    msdaisy January 26, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    I agree that the Judge did not seem very birther friendly. He seemed more annoyed and ready to get on with it and have it over with.

    The only thing I’d add was the fact that in her closing argument Orly did ask the Judge to hold Obama and Jablonski in contempt of court for not showing up and showing his papers.

    Good post Doc.

  10. avatar
    J. Potter January 26, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

    Boone Larson: Birther websites are reporting other conclusions:

    Just when we thought Haskins was recovering some of his senses. Should have known. Once you’ve birfed ….

  11. avatar
    Scientist January 26, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Then why did she issue a subpoena for primary evidence? I beg to differ with you.
    Fraudulence was the underpinning theme for the entire hearing.

    There was a poster here named Saipan Annie who swore that the President was born in the US of 2 US citizen parents, Malcolm X and someone named Jo Ann Newman. This would of course make him a natural born citizen by even the plaintiff’s definition. I think I ought to inform Judge Malihi of this fact so that he can ask Saipan Annie why she did not provide him with this evidence, which would have saved him from wasting his time hearing this case.

  12. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 26, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

    Carl Swensson:

    To all my friends in battle,

    The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there. We argued that all the evidence needed to be entered in to record so the Judge allowed for a speedy hearing where all evidence was entered into the court record. What that means is this… Any appeal, if one is even possible, would be based on the evidence provided by the lawyers in each case. Both Van Irion and My lawyer, Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in those two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with “Birther” Orly Taitz. As expected, she was an embarrassment.

    Now we’re merely awaiting the publishing of this Judge’s ruling which, as previously stated, will be a Default Judgment.
    In other words…we won. Now it’s time for the rest of the States to take my lead and duplicate this effort.

    Carl

    If this is true….Why argue about entering evidence into the record when clearly the judge wanted to go home.

  13. avatar
    richCares January 26, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

    one observer noted that the stand selling frogs, for the frog marchng, closed early and was nowhere in sight after the joke session ended.

  14. avatar
    gorefan January 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Fraudulence was the underpinning theme for the entire hearing.

    Only for Orly’s part of it. The other guys accepted the President’s birth in Hawaii. As to whether he considered himself a NBC under the law, that would call for a legal opinion which may or may not be forthcoming. It wouldn’t be fraud since he public proclaimed the facts of his father’s citizenship long before the election.

  15. avatar
    JD Reed January 26, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Then why did she issue a subpoena for primary evidence? I beg to differ with you.Fraudulence was the underpinning theme for the entire hearing.

    If so, Sipe, isn’t this an abject birther failure? From the facts as reported by Doc, looks like no evidence at all pointed to fraud. The fact that Hawaii authenticates the birth of Obama in Honolulu would mean, under full faith and credit, that there’s no issue to decide as to where the president was born, for purposes of ballot placement. Georgia is duty-bound to accept Hawaii’s word and place Obama on the ballot, if this is the only issue.It has no competence to decide for itself whether the document Hawaii verifies is fraudulent.
    The other issue, presented by the lawyers other than Orly, are based on the law. I would think the judge and the SOS would be duty-bound to examine the law themselves and not just take the plaintiff’s position, even in the absence of a defence attorney. This, after all, isn’t about allocating the furniture in a divorce case in which one side failes to appear. This has bearing on the entire electorate of Georgia, and indirectly, the entire electorate of the country.
    It would be ludicrous for the judge and the SOS to find for the plaintiff if they have good reason to believe the law favors the defendant.

  16. avatar
    justlw January 26, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    ‘She kept having trouble with her projected documents, saying “scroll up, up, up, up, no, down, down, down.”’

    Oh come on, I can’t be the first to think that Orly’s case was ultimately going to hinge on the Konami code.

  17. avatar
    JoZeppy January 26, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

    El Diablo Negro: If this is true….Why argue about entering evidence into the record when clearly the judge wanted to go home.

    If this was true, don’t you think the judge would have said something at the end of the hearing…or for that matter, wouldn’t Orly be proclaiming it from the mountain top?

  18. avatar
    HistorianDude January 26, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    I note that a default judgment could have been offered immediately from the bench.

    It was not.

  19. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 26, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    JoZeppy: If this was true, don’t you think the judge would have said something at the end of the hearing…or for that matter, wouldn’t Orly be proclaiming it from the mountain top?

    She would not be quiet about it that’s for sure, but, It seems like even birthers are starting to move away from her. They are now listening to others like Carl, Farrar, & Dean.

  20. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 26, 2012 at 4:07 pm #

    Scientist: There was a poster here named Saipan Annie who swore that the President was born in the US of 2 US citizen parents, Malcolm X and someone named Jo Ann Newman. This would of course make him a natural born citizen by even the plaintiff’s definition. I think I ought to inform Judge Malihi of this fact so that he can ask Saipan Annie why she did not provide him with this evidence, which would have saved him from wasting his time hearing this case.

    As is your style, you delight in misrepresenting my position. If you care to look back you will see that I have consistently maintained that he is a nbc – by means of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman. I have maintained that his crime is FRAUD – serious election fraud – by presenting a fake identity to cover up his actual parentage.

  21. avatar
    Dave January 26, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    Do I understand correctly that Taitz at no point complained that the absence of the subpoenaed documents and President was hindering her case?

    Doesn’t that seem odd?

  22. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 26, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    IANAL, but if a Default Judgement was offered and refused, The defendant has the option to review the evidence and can file objections?

  23. avatar
    y_p_w January 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    You know – the empty defense table reminds me of a “promotion” that a minor league baseball team once ran called “Nobody night”.

    Basically what they did was close off all the entire stadium to spectators. Only the teams, the officials, and some stadium employees were inside the stadium. They brought ladders so people outside the stadium could peek in, and they sold food and souvenirs outside the stadium. The gag was continued when they played assorted songs like Nowhere Man.

    Again, this was surreal theater.

  24. avatar
    Scientist January 26, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    Saipan Annie: I have maintained that his crime is FRAUD – serious election fraud – by presenting a fake identity to cover up his actual parentage

    Of course your story is nonsense, but suppose some candidate mis-represented who his parents were. By what statute is that electoral fraud? Many candidates have been fathered by someone not married to their mother. Many are adopted. They may choose not to talk about or might even lie. It’s certainly not fraud. At worst. it’s a lie, like a campaign promise they can’t or don’t intend to keep.

  25. avatar
    gorefan January 26, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    Saipan Annie: by presenting a fake identity to cover up his actual parentage.

    Your assuming he knows.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    That should be obvious. However, in a hearing of is type the standards of evidence seem pretty loose. Nothing in Orly’s pile was original or certified except the illegal access of SSN data by Linda Jordan. She testified under oath that she accessed the record. One of the plaintiffs submitted the long form as valid evidence of who Obama’s father was.

    The only certified documents (not from Taitz) were copies of the 2008 submissions of the Democratic and Republican parties of their candidates for president in the general election.

    Saipan Annie: Dr. C., to be fair as you do try to be, it should be stated that these exhibits are facsimiles thereof, not original / primary evidence

  27. avatar
    alg January 26, 2012 at 4:26 pm #

    “The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there.”

    Mr. Swensson is making this up. There is no such thing as a “default judgement” in a proceeding for which the judge has no substantive authority to decide. All Judge Malihi can do is establish a record and make a recommendation. Further the record is still open until February 5th, so how can a default judgement be issues when the judge is still accepting briefs?

  28. avatar
    Arthur January 26, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

    Doc. C. observed, “The second plaintiff, represented by Mr. Hatfield, presented an even shorter case. As in the first it was established that the plaintiff was a Georgia voter and the Barack Obama’s father was not a US Citizen. That was all. No argument was made.”

    Hatfield represented Carl Swensson at the hearing. Hmmm. Wasn’t Carl Swensson promising on this site that his attorney was going to present something earth-shattering at this hearing? Wasn’t he all, “Wait until Thursday–I can’t talk about it now, cuz it’s so super-duper special?” And so what did he present: “Um, yer honor, Barack Obama’s pop wasn’t an America”n citizen. Um, thank you.”

    Carl Swensson, I shall never trust you again! You led me on! Promising to make the earth quiver; why . . .why I feel . . . I feel violated, sir!

  29. avatar
    JoZeppy January 26, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    El Diablo Negro: IANAL, but if a Default Judgement was offered and refused, The defendant has the option to review the evidence and can file objections?

    A judge wouldn’t “offer” default. If there is a default, the judge would simply enter a default, and he most probably would mention it at the end of the hearing. And this isn’t exactly a situation where there is an option for a default. His job is to make a recommendation to the secretary of state. You can’t exactly enter a “default” recommendation. This all just stinks of BS.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2012 at 4:36 pm #

    Not the entire hearing. The first two plaintiffs made no allegations whatever of fraud. They used the birth certificate as evidence. Their case was that anyone with a foreign father is ineligible.

    Orly, however, did make her whole case about fraud, saying nothing that impacted eligibility. What she argued was that SHE should be able to get more evidence and that people should investigate Obama. She offered no evidence that Obama was born outside the United States. She didn’t even claim he became an Indonesian citizen. Rather than mentioning Obama’s nationality as Indonesian on that school registration form, she spent all her efforts on the NAME on the form.

    While she claimed that the SECOND birth certificate released by Barack Obama was a fake, she never asserted at the hearing he was born elsewhere or that the FIRST birth certificate was a fake.

    In short, even if you believe everything Orly said about fraud, Obama is still eligible.

    Folks say that the burden of proof is on Obama to show eligibility. However, his birth in Hawaii is a generally accepted fact (it’s in all the encyclopedias) and as such doesn’t need to be proved. The other part is a question of law and doesn’t need to be proved either.

    Saipan Annie: Fraudulence was the underpinning theme for the entire hearing.

  31. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    Saipan Annie: As is your style, you delight in misrepresenting my position. If you care to look back you will see that I have consistently maintained that he is a nbc – by means of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman. I have maintained that his crime is FRAUD– serious election fraud – by presenting a fake identity to cover up his actual parentage.

    Even if we were to assume that your fantasy is true, where does the Constitution say that the President must divulge the true identify of his or her parents? As for election fraud, did Obama ever list the names of his parents on any election documents?

    You obviously do not know what the elements of criminal fraud are.

  32. avatar
    Dave Muckey January 26, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    Hey Saipan Annie. Jo Anne Newman was Paul’s wife. Just thought I’d point that out for you.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    I really don’t know what to make of this, and so will not speculate beyond what I can verify.

    JoZeppy: A judge wouldn’t “offer” default. If there is a default, the judge would simply enter a default, and he most probably would mention it at the end of the hearing.

  34. avatar
    Majority Will January 26, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    Saipan Annie: As is your style, you delight in misrepresenting my position. If you care to look back you will see that I have consistently maintained that he is a nbc – by means of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman. I have maintained that his crime is FRAUD– serious election fraud – by presenting a fake identity to cover up his actual parentage.

    Consistently? Do you need a dictionary?

    You also said he was the son of a Kenyan. See your quote below from 1/21/12.

    Malcolm X was born on May 19, 1925, in Omaha, Nebraska. That’s a long way from Kenya.

    Saipan Annie January 21, 2012 at 4:54 pm (Quote) #

    “After all, by any reasonable standard, he is of course a Natural Born citizen.

    While of course there are some who will not wish him well no matter what – as it goes with all political figures – a fair determination of eligibility will satisfy most of those who question it.

    Keep in mind, however, that concerns far beyond his eligibility as the son of a Kenyan abound.

    It must suck having to keep your lies straight.

    And trolling means anyone (like you) can say anything without offering a shred of credible evidence.

    Keep spinning the ridiculous spin. It’s just really bad performance art. I hope no one is paying you to troll. They’re getting ripped off.

    (emphasis added)

    P.S. Unless you’re fabricating someone else, the actress goes by the name Joanne Woodward.

  35. avatar
    donna January 26, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    how could the judge issue a “default judgment” if the parties have until 2/5 to submit evidence, objections etc?

    this is the procedure according to the sect of state as stated in his letter to jablonski:

    “In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge. Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; “

  36. avatar
    misha January 26, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    Saipan Annie: he is a nbc – by means of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman

    1 – Who is Jo Ann Newman? Any relation to Alfred E. Newman?
    2 – What is the birth name of Malcolm X, and what was his nickname as a teenager?

    Where did you learn English?

  37. avatar
    J. Potter January 26, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    El Diablo Negro: Carl Swensson:
    To all my friends in battle,
    The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor

    That calls for a good ol’game of “Buuuuuulllll-SH*T!”

    Everyone speculating (myself included to a degree) keeps thinking of this as a trial. It’s just a hearing. Collection of evidence, argument, etc., for consideration.

    And the birthers have been watching way too many courtroom dramas!

    However, the birthers do have one last chance … !

    Georgia could go the full Vattel.

    The Vattelists destroyed the PDF sniffers’ case, but to my knowledge, none of the birthers managed to contradict the Vattelists’ argument. To my knowledge anyway. So, birfers gonna pin it all on Vattel and party like it’s 1866? Is Malihi gonna break down in his robes and do the two-citizen parent two-step with Swensson and friends?

    ( ;) )

    Time for some chips and dip and a replay of the hearing …. I’m thinking Vatel!
    Vatel Fine Cheese Spreads …. Anti-Birth with the best!

  38. avatar
    G January 26, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    LOL!

    So folks have a reference:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konami_Code

    justlw: Oh come on, I can’t be the first to think that Orly’s case was ultimately going to hinge on the Konami code.

  39. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 26, 2012 at 5:38 pm #

    Scientist: to answer your question –

    “did Obama ever list the names of his parents on any election documents?”

    Not that I am aware of, though he did frequently refer to them in campaign materials and speeches [and still does]. This clearly is misrepresentation of who he is.

    If he presented himself as a candidate via an alias, the fraud is even more serious.

    Gorefan – you stated:

    “Your assuming he knows.”

    In DFMF, by his own admission, he discovered his birth certificate when he was in high school. He stated that his birth certificate showed him that he occupied the place in history where his parents dreams had been. Ergo, he could not claim that he did not know who was listed on that document as his father and his mother.

  40. avatar
    Saipan Annie January 26, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    Majority Will says “You also said he was the son of a Kenyan”

    You have taken the clause out of its context. The full phrase is: “concerns far beyond his eligibility as the son of a Kenyan abound.”

    Meaning – concerns that as a dual citizen he is Constitutionally eligible as a ‘natural born citizen’.

    Kindly refrain from vulgarities when addressing me.

  41. avatar
    donna January 26, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

    i think what he found while in hs was information about his father

    he would have needed his bc before that to obtain a drivers license, etc

    on georgia’s “NOTICE OF CANDIDACY AND AFFIDAVIT”, there is nothing about the candidate’s parents

  42. avatar
    misha January 26, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    “She kept having trouble with her projected documents, saying “scroll up, up, up, up, no, down, down, down.”

    “To your left. No, your other left.”

  43. avatar
    G January 26, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    *face palm* Yeah… that BC would have said exactly what the COLB and LFBC clearly say…. *duh* You know, those same parents he spends his entire book talking about…

    You need a better dumb theory to be more entertaining. You should reach out to the time/space travelling Mars folks. Maybe they’ll let you glom onto their gig next…

    Saipan Annie: In DFMF, by his own admission, he discovered his birth certificate when he was in high school. He stated that his birth certificate showed him that he occupied the place in history where his parents dreams had been. Ergo, he could not claim that he did not know who was listed on that document as his father and his mother.

  44. avatar
    y_p_w January 26, 2012 at 6:05 pm #

    donna: i think what he found while in hs was information about his fatherhe would have needed his bc before that to obtain a drivers license, etc

    Not necessarily. He probably had his own passport (or was on his mother’s), and a US passport is almost universally accepted as a an identity verification document for getting a driver license. I think at one time even an expired one would work. For an SSN card, they currently want a birth certificate from a US state (if possible) as an age verification document for US citizens, but will accept a passport. I don’t know if the rules were different back in the late 70s. I could also imagine that he went with his grandparents to apply for an SSN card, and they would have brought the documents and then stored them for safekeeping.

  45. avatar
    Scientist January 26, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    Saipan Annie: Scientist: to answer your question –
    “did Obama ever list the names of his parents on any election documents?”

    You are misquoting me. I never asked that.

    Saipan Annie: Not that I am aware of, though he did frequently refer to them in campaign materials and speeches [and still does]. This clearly is misrepresentation of who he is.

    Candidates “misrepresent” themselves on a daily basis. “I am a good family man”, “I will always be honest with the people”, “I will never take PAC money”. “I balanced the budget in my state without cutting services or raising taxes”. None have ever been indicted, let alone convicted for such “misrepresentations”. They may get a “pants on fire” from Politifact, but that;s about it and in many cases that has no effect on their electoral propects.

    Saipan Annie: If he presented himself as a candidate via an alias, the fraud is even more serious.

    Leslie King = Gerald Ford
    Willain Blythe = Bill Clinton
    Newton Mcpherson = Newt Gingrich

    You really aren’t having a good day. Come back some other time.

  46. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    Saipan Annie:

    In DFMF, by his own admission, he discovered his birth certificate when he was in high school. He stated that his birth certificate showed him that he occupied the place in history where his parents dreams had been. Ergo, he could not claim that he did not know who was listed on that document as his father and his mother.

    Obama writes about seeing his birth certificate in the context of finding an article about his father which appeared in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin upon his father’s graduation from the University of Hawaii. Did Malcolm X graduate from the University of Hawaii? Did the Honolulu Star-Bulletin write a story about Malcolm’s graduation? I don’t think so.

    It is obvious to any clear-thinking person that in regard to both the birth certificate and the newspaper article Obama is talking about Barack Obama, Sr.

  47. avatar
    Keith January 26, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    Scientist: Leslie King = Gerald Ford
    Willain Blythe = Bill Clinton
    Newton Mcpherson = Newt Gingrich

    David Dwight Eisenhower = Dwight David Eisenhower
    James Earl Carter = Jimmy Carter

  48. avatar
    misha January 26, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

    Scientist: Leslie King = Gerald Ford
    Willain Blythe = Bill Clinton
    Newton Mcpherson = Newt Gingrich

    Keith: David Dwight Eisenhower = Dwight David Eisenhower
    James Earl Carter = Jimmy Carter

    Mitt Romney = Willard Mitt Romney

    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/06/famous-willards.html – As in Willard, who kept pet rats.

  49. avatar
    gorefan January 26, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

    Saipan Annie: he could not claim that he did not know who was listed on that document as his father and his mother.

    Again you are assuming the names on the certificate were not Ann Dunham Obama and Barack obama Sr.

  50. avatar
    richCares January 26, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    “I don’t know if the rules were different back in the late 70s+”
    in the 50’s I used baptism cert to get SSN, and to enter US Marines
    just for info

  51. avatar
    The Magic M January 26, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    OK, here’s my take on the “no show” issue:

    I now think this was a clever move for several reasons.

    1. It did not dignify the ludicrous birther challenge with an actual “trial” where they could try and reap propaganda value.

    2. It leaves open the possibility to simply submit the COLB to the SOS, should he be inclined to keep Obama off the ballot.

    3. (And this is the kicker.) It offers the SOS the opportunity to deny the President a place on the ballot.

    Why is #3 positive? Well, while birthers think that this would somehow profit their propaganda, for the real world this would mean several other things:

    (a) It would not damage Obama’s chances as it’s just a primary preference ballot, not the general elections.

    (b) The SOS would come across as totally stupid for single-handedly denying the validity of the 2008 elections.

    (c) The SOS would go against the entire Congress, including GA representatives, including GOP representatives, and effectively label them “idiots” or “traitors” for considering Obama eligible.

    (d) It would enforce the “Republicans are closet birthers and will bow to any looney conspiracy theory” meme that would chase many people off their ranks.

    (e) It might even force the GOP presidential candidate(s) to either chastise the GA SOS or openly side with him; the latter option would likely ensure their loss in the Presidential elections, the former would force the GOP into infights.

    Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but it might indeed be an actual political plan behind this and not just incompetence or negligence.

  52. avatar
    Kate520 January 26, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

    There are people who swear up and down, and im one of them, that Barbara Bush is actually the daughter of Alaister Crowley, also not an American citizen, which means Bush was also an usurper.

    Huh. I should file suit somewhere to negate this whol last dark decade.

  53. avatar
    donna January 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm #

    The Magic M:

    the parties have till feb 5 to submit evidence/rebuttals/objections, etc

    i would do as attorneys usually do and fax everything at 4:55pm on the 5th

  54. avatar
    donna January 26, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    i should add, if i were jablonski

  55. avatar
    G January 26, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

    Hey – important question… between the parade of Clowns by Orly, did anyone hear *ANY* mention of her supposed 2 plaintiffs that she was *ALSO* supposed to be arguing to try to get on the GA Balllot???

    I don’t recall any of that whole supposedly “important issue” coming up at all… what happened to her whole argument of why she represents someone with “standing” in this matter at all???

  56. avatar
    misha January 26, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    Saipan Annie: If you care to look back you will see that I have consistently maintained that he is a nbc – by means of Malcolm X and Jo Ann Newman.

    Kate520: There are people who swear up and down, and im one of them, that Barbara Bush is actually the daughter of Alaister Crowley

    Was everyone let out on Wednesday? This is getting crazier by the hour.

    Even my neighborhood is going nuts:
    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/Cops-investigating-massage-parlor-robbery.html

    I thought Times Square was a magnet. I miss Park Slope. The nuts there have character. I took Angel for a walk yesterday morning, and as we waited for the light to change, someone said to me, “hey, I know you. You’re the guy who always talks to his dog.”

  57. avatar
    misha January 26, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    G: what happened to her whole argument of why she represents someone with “standing” in this matter at all???

    She was too busy flirting with every shaygetz in the room.

  58. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 26, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    It bothers me that a layman watching the video will have a hard time understanding why the judge rules against the plaintiffs should that happen because they only see one side.

    Believe me, that won’t happen.. As someone who watched the video feed, I can attest to the fact that the whole thing was a jumbled, disorganized, totally confusing and incomprehensible mess. I doubt seriously that any viewer watching the proceedings not already steeped in birther lore could ever make heads or tails of what was going on. It looked like two guys came on and tried to show that Obama’s father was born in Kenya and then claimed that somehow affected his qualifications to be President, for an incomprehensible reason…. and then some crazy lady came on and babbled for a long time, speaking with an incomprehensible accent, bringing on other witnesses who spoke with heavy accents and seemed to claiming that there’s something wrong with Obama’s social security number.

    I’m sure the only impression a spectator who ever sees this thing will draw is that (a) birthers are crazy, and (b) apparently they have been fully allowed to air their claims in open court, even though they don’t make any sense.

  59. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 26, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    Scientist: Many candidates have been fathered by someone not married to their mother. Many are adopted

    You mean, kind of like Newton McPherson?

  60. avatar
    y_p_w January 26, 2012 at 8:58 pm #

    Expelliarmus: You mean, kind of like Newton McPherson?

    I think he was fathered by someone married to his mother, although no longer so by the time he was born.

  61. avatar
    y_p_w January 26, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

    Just a question for any attorneys.

    I’ve been a juror for a few trials, and none of them were ever litigated by more than one set of attorneys on each side. One civil trial had multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, but it was a single law firm representing the plaintiffs and a single law firm representing all defendants.

    I’m just wondering what the heck do they do with so many attorneys represeing multiple clients who might have different interests. Is it possible for one plaintiff’s attorney to object to another plaintiff’s attorney if they feel a line of questioning or the introduction of something will hurt their client’s case? For instance, Orly let some stuff just stand even though it theoretically hurt her cause.

  62. avatar
    donna January 26, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

    this was NOT a trial in the same sense that you participated in

    this was an administrative hearing

    there will be no VERDICT but a report of the findings of fact and conclusions of law

    the report will be submitted to the sect of state

  63. avatar
    y_p_w January 26, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    I know. However, I’m thinking the attorneys still get to object, although there was none of that with the defense not showing up.

    I certainly understand the concept of default, like when going to traffic court and the ticketing officer doesn’t show up. That’s a default judgement for the guy with the ticket. Or if the ticketed driver doesn’t show – that’s a default judgement for the cops.

    Someone said a default order only meant that Jablonski and the defense would have no more input, but that the judge still has all that pile of merde that he can base his judgement upon. I suppose even if there was no defense objections, he just let almost everything go (except Orly facing the camera and some of her most egregious stuff) at which point he’ll just throw stuff out that he finds either irrelevant the the question at hand (a cryptic passport application rub out or all that stuff about social security numbers) and take the key fact that none of the attorneys objected to the introduction of the COLB as genuine.

  64. avatar
    donna January 26, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

    there is NO DEFAULT JUDGMENT –

    read what the secretary of state wrote yesterday to jablonski

    the procedure

    “In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.”

    ALL parties have till 2/5 to submit their objections, additional evidence, etc

    so there could be no findings till then

  65. avatar
    G January 26, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    Agreed.

    Expelliarmus: Believe me, that won’t happen.. As someone who watched the video feed, I can attest to the fact that the whole thing was a jumbled, disorganized, totally confusing and incomprehensible mess. I doubt seriously that any viewer watching the proceedings not already steeped in birther lore could ever make heads or tails of what was going on. It looked like two guys came on and tried to show that Obama’s father was born in Kenya and then claimed that somehow affected his qualifications to be President, for an incomprehensible reason…. and then some crazy lady came on and babbled for a long time, speaking with an incomprehensible accent, bringing on other witnesses who spoke with heavy accents and seemed to claiming that there’s something wrong with Obama’s social security number.I’m sure the only impression a spectator who ever sees this thing will draw is that (a) birthers are crazy, and (b) apparently they have been fully allowed to air their claims in open court, even though they don’t make any sense.

  66. avatar
    G January 26, 2012 at 10:47 pm #

    Agreed.

    donna: there is NO DEFAULT JUDGMENT – read what the secretary of state wrote yesterday to jablonskithe procedure“In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge.” ALL parties have till 2/5 to submit their objections, additional evidence, etcso there could be no findings till then

  67. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 26, 2012 at 11:00 pm #

    Just as plausible: that Saipan Annie is a NBC by way of Beetle Bailey and Betty Boop.

  68. avatar
    Daniel January 26, 2012 at 11:20 pm #

    Kate520: There are people who swear up and down, and im one of them, that Barbara Bush is actually the daughter of Alaister Crowley

    Well Uncle Al did get around…..

  69. avatar
    JPotter January 26, 2012 at 11:46 pm #

    misha: Any relation to Alfred E. Newman?

    It’s Alfred E. Neuman, with a ‘u’. Clearly no relation.

  70. avatar
    Nathanael January 27, 2012 at 6:00 am #

    JD Reed: The fact that Hawaii authenticates the birth of Obama in Honolulu would mean, under full faith and credit, that there’s no issue to decide as to where the president was born, for purposes of ballot placement. Georgia is duty-bound to accept Hawaii’s word and place Obama on the ballot,

    Is the ACJ’s recommendation supposed to be decided based only on the evidence entered into the record? Were the statements from Hawaii entered? (I watched what I could of the feed, but the audio was horrible, and the feed itself was prone to stutter and stop).

    if this is the only issue.It has no competence to decide for itself whether the document Hawaii verifies is fraudulent.
    The other issue, presented by the lawyers other than Orly, are based on the law. I would think the judge and the SOSwould be duty-bound to examine the law themselves and not just take the plaintiff’s position, even in the absence of a defence attorney. This, after all, isn’t about allocating the furniture in a divorce case in which one side failes to appear. This has bearing on the entire electorate of Georgia, and indirectly, the entire electorate of the country.
    It would be ludicrous for the judge and the SOS to find for the plaintiff if they have good reason to believe the law favors the defendant.

  71. avatar
    Nathanael January 27, 2012 at 6:05 am #

    alg:
    “The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there.”

    Mr. Swensson is making this up.There is no such thing as a “default judgement” in a proceeding for which the judge has no substantive authority to decide.All Judge Malihi can do is establish a record and make a recommendation.Further the record is still open until February 5th, so how can a default judgement be issues when the judge is still accepting briefs?

    In addition, isn’t a default judgment supposed to be announced during the proceeding?

  72. avatar
    Nathanael January 27, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    donna:
    there is NO DEFAULT JUDGMENT –

    Not only is there a default judgment, but it is a binding default judgment, which can now be cited precedentially in other ballot challenges all over the country.

    At least, that’s what birfers over a Freep are now saying.

  73. avatar
    Nathanael January 27, 2012 at 7:35 am #

    Nathanael: Not only is there a default judgment, but it is a binding default judgment, which can now be cited precedentially in other ballot challenges all over the country.

    At least, that’s what birfers over a Freep are now saying.

    Correction. That’s the ORYR take.

  74. avatar
    John Reilly January 27, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    If there was a default judgment someone would post a copy.

    If the case was fully litigated on both sides, and appealed up to the Supreme Court of Georgia,the decision of the Georgia Supreme Court would be binding precedent which could be cited anywhere in Georgia.

    BFD

  75. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 27, 2012 at 8:19 am #

    Dave:
    Do I understand correctly that Taitz at no point complained that the absence of the subpoenaed documents and President was hindering her case?

    Doesn’t that seem odd?

    IANAL, but I suspect that there is a problem here. Malihi (a little man who yesterday gre too big for his Confederate army boots) may be only a deputu judge in an administrative case, buty he was obviously reating it as a court case.

    Most of the people Orly anted to subpoena (except for Polarik and the CBS Atlana guy) work for the federal government.

    Perhaps there secretly was a federal justice department officer in attendance just waiting for Svetlana Averbukha to try to enforce her soop-penozas to then address the judge and tell him to stop the proceedings since “this has now become a federal case”.

    Again, IANAL and definitely not a Konstitooshunal One like our nemesis, but …

  76. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 27, 2012 at 8:23 am #

    Problems with my keyboard (spilled too much Koolaid over it , I guess)

    “who yesterday gre too big for his Confederate army boots) may be only a deputu judge in an administrative case, buty he was obviously reating it as a court case.Most of the people Orly anted to subpoena (except for Polarik and the CBS Atlana guy”
    ->
    who yesterday grew too big for his Confederate army boots) may be only a deputy judge in an administrative case, but he was obviously treating it as a court case. Most of the people Orly wanted to subpoena (except for Polarik and the CBS Atlanta guy

  77. avatar
    Scientist January 27, 2012 at 8:34 am #

    First of all, was there a default? True, one side didn’t show. But rather than accepting the default, the other side insisted on taking the field and immediately kicked the ball into their own goal (by presenting the b.c. as an authentic document).

    Second, this is not a trial where all evidence must be presented during the trial and only then. It is hearing as part of a process in which evidence can be presented up to Feb 5. I don’t know that evidence presented yesterday gets any preference over evidence presented in writing on Feb 4.

    Third, I don’t know how a default creates precedent. A default means only one side presented evidence. And what did they present? Evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. No evidence that he was born anywhere else. A bunch of stuff about his SSN, which has no bearing whatsoever on eligibility. And some Vattel arguments. But just because only one side shows up to argue doesn’t make their arguments persuasive. If the flat earthers or Holocaust deniers organize a “debate” and the other side boycotts out of justifiable fear of contributing to a farce, the fact remains that the earth is spheroid and the Holocaust really happened.

  78. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 27, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    y_p_w: I think he was fathered by someone married to his mother, although no longer so by the time he was born.

    Well, a dead man is no longer a citizen (after all, he is no longer SUPPOSED to be able to vote or pay taxes) – that takes care of Bill Clinton. Not an NBC. But not of Newt, as you are suggesting. What about Newt? Do absent, divorced fathers pay taxes or do we check whether the adoptive ones do? (if you are wondering, I think Newt looks native American) Was his father really his father? DNA would be needed. Oops, his supposed father is dead.

    And it is getting worse, today medicine enables doctors to have babies born after the death of their mother (or should I use the Vatellite motherS?). NBC or not? After all, it was a machine (probably not made in the USA) that gave the final push.

    The solution might be to claim the unborn are indeed persons and NBC is therefore decided on conception. That takes care of Jindal.

  79. avatar
    Nathanael January 27, 2012 at 10:08 am #

    Scientist:
    First of all, was there a default?True, one side didn’t show.

    There’s been a lot of discussion over at FB as to what the judge might actually have said since an ACJ doesn’t issue a “judgment” of any kind — default or otherwise. The consensus is that it’s all based on a misunderstanding by the plaintiffs of something the ACJ said, but what that might have been no one knows.

    Apparently, there are judgments and there are judgments; one possibility is what the ACJ meant was that he was going to enter a “default judgment” that the Obama side would not be allowed to enter any further evidence for his consideration.

    The plaintiffs’/birthers’ claims that they “won” is bogus, of course, because this is not a trial, it’s fact-finding, and nobody can “win” a fact-finding hearing. The FB consensus is that if the ACJ means he intends to make recommendation to remove Obama from the ballot simply because he didn’t show up at the meeting, rather than based on and analysis of the factual record he’s overstepping his mandate and setting himself up for severe professional embarrassment.

    Third, I don’t know how a default creates precedent.A default means only one side presented evidence.

    It doesn’t, for a laundry list of reasons.

    1. This is not a trial; it’s a hearing.
    2. This is not a judicial court, it’s an administrative court (part of the executive branch, not the judciary). Judicial courts don’t look to ACs for precedents.
    3. The ACJ is tasked with finding fact and making a recommendation, not rendering a verdict. Recommendations aren’t precedent.
    4. In judicial courts, precedents are set at the appellate level and above. Trial judges don’t set precedents.
    5. Probably a whole raft of other reasons I’m not aware of.

  80. avatar
    y_p_w January 27, 2012 at 10:31 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Well, a dead man is no longer a citizen (after all, he is no longer SUPPOSED to be able to vote or pay taxes) – that takes care of Bill Clinton. Not an NBC. But not of Newt, as you are suggesting. What about Newt? Do absent, divorced fathers pay taxes or do we check whether the adoptive ones do? (if you are wondering, I think Newt looks native American) Was his father really his father? DNA would be needed. Oops, his supposed father is dead.

    And it is getting worse, today medicine enables doctors to have babies born after the death of their mother (or should I use the Vatellite motherS?). NBC or not? After all, it was a machine (probably not made in the USA) that gave the final push.

    The solution might be to claim the unborn are indeed persons and NBC is therefore decided on conception. That takes care of Jindal.

    That reminds me of a New Years Eve sketch I remember from The Tonight Show. News outlets sometimes report the first baby born in a certain area during the new year. Well Johnny Carson took it one step further. This sketch was about the first child **conceived** in the new year, where his team supposedly had a camera planted in the bedroom of the supposed couple under the sheets and being interviewed by Johnny. He asked them what they were going to name the child, and the soon-to-be mother said that she’d name the child after the interviewer – named “Ted” (as in Koppel).

    Of course these says who really is the mother and father? You give your example of the mother who (I think you’re implying) is kept on life support. That’s technically as case where she’s not legally dead yet, but then again, who signs the original certificate? At least in my state legally any “informant” can sign it. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes’s kid’s birth certificate lists “FRIEND” and it’s hard to make out the signature. It’s one signature box in California for the informant, but our hospital’s BC office asked both myself and my wife to fit our signatures in the same box and printed “PARENTS” in the informant box. Many states leave it up to whoever is in the delivery room room filling out the paperwork to sort it out. You’ve got surrogate motherhood., egg donation, sperm donation, complete embryo donation, in-vitro fertilization, etc.

    I’ve heard of same-sex couples who tried going “free form” when they had children and named both “parents” on the original (i.e. not adoptive) birth certificate. There was that interesting Iowa case where a lesbian couple tried getting both names on the birth certificate application, and the registrar refused and only placed the birth mother’s name without a father’s name. I think they have a birth registration process where they only issue printouts, although they might archive an original signed application and certification statement. The couple sued and got the other parent’s name via an adoptive birth certificate. Several states have signed laws specifically allowing this with adoptive same-sex couples, where the adoptive birth certificate lists both names. The UK now specifically allows same sex couples to have both parents names on the original.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267155/Lesbian-mothers-sex-parents-jointly-sign-birth-certificate.html

  81. avatar
    The Magic M January 27, 2012 at 11:15 am #

    Nathanael: 5. Probably a whole raft of other reasons I’m not aware of.

    One of the obvious reasons is that it would allow *anything* into case law.

    Just assume A wants to get some ridiculous legal theory F into case law. He sues his buddy B and claims that, based on F, he should be awarded summary judgment. B doesn’t show up and A gets his F injected into case law.

    (In the context of corporate lawsuits – think patent case -, I heard this has actually been tried, just not with default judgment but with an intentionally weak defense by the defendant who secretly colluded with the plaintiff.)

    That’s why default only gets you to win the case but not to have your argument entered as uncontestable truth.

  82. avatar
    Nathanael January 28, 2012 at 1:54 am #

    The Magic M:
    That’s why default only gets you to win the case but not to have your argument entered as uncontestable truth.

    DOH. That’s actually reason #0: Default judgments are never precedent. Full stop. Default judgments are issued for procedural reasons — such as one party failing to show — never based on a point of law. As such, they’re incapable of being precedent.

    As to getting one’s argument “into the record”, birfers are — not surprisingly — once again being self-deceived, naive legal ignoramuses. Getting one’s argument into the record, even uncontested, is by no means equivalent to the court accepting the truth of it. I suspect not just birfers but most of us here would be dumbfounded at the sheer volume of utter lunacy that finds its way into court records (any lawyer-types here wanna supply examples?).

    Now, generally opposing counsel, or the judge himself, is there to object to most of the insane stuff, so there’s some filtering built into the legal system, but just because insansity slips through doesn’t ipso facto transsubstantiate it into rational thought, which appears to be exactly what birfers are hoping will save their arses here: hey, we don’t have to get our act together; “getting it into the record” means it’s now case law.

    Did we case “case law”? We meant “binding case law”.

    Did we say “binding case law”? We meant “precedential binding case law”.

    And yet Birferstan’s not even going to get the default judgment they think the ALJ promised them. They’ll soon be declaring a national day of mourning, birfer flags at half mast.

  83. avatar
    john adams February 3, 2012 at 9:28 am #

    OBAMA IS A LIAR, CHECK OUT SNOPES….WHY DONT THE DEMOCRATS PRESENT ALL THE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC VIEW AND BE OVER WITH IT…WHY HIDE THE DOCUMENTS..IS THIS BO’s BAGGAGE of UN TRUTHS.. OH I SEE OBAMA LIKES TO LIE AND DRAG OUT THE TRUTH LIKE HIS ATTORNEY ERIC HOLDER..WHAT ARE THE DEMOCRATS AFRAID OF …THE TRUTH? EVERYONE REALLY KNOWS OBAMA IS A BOGUS POTUS….HE CAN NOT PRODUCE THE CORRECT INFO…

  84. avatar
    The Magic M February 3, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    Nathanael: That’s actually reason #0: Default judgments are never precedent.

    Right. I still could argue that my construction would work if B deliberately puts up a bad defense.

    john adams: [BROKEN CAPS LOCK WORD SALAD]

    Your post shows:

    (a) with 4% probability, your caps lock key is broken

    (b) with 78% probability, you are over 60 years of age [basis: overview of people writing in all caps on WND and their Facebook photos)

    (c) with 100% probability, you are desperate your Georgia OMG moment turned out to be another puff of smoke

  85. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 10:35 am #

    John Adams:

    CHANGE THE BATTERY ON YOUR HEARING AID–YOU’RE SHOUTING AT EVERYONE AND IT’S REALLY ANNOYING.

    Keep it up, John, and I’ll take away that oversized Bingo marker you’re so fond of. You know the one . . . with the “Don’t Touch My Medicare!” sticker on it–that’s right.

  86. avatar
    misha February 3, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

    john adams: OBAMA IS A LIAR, CHECK OUT SNOPES

    ALL CAPS are used by the semi-literate, and the insane.

    “CHECK OUT SNOPES”:
    I just did. You lose: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp#citizen

    Want more? Obama born in Kenya? No:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html

    Thanks for playing.