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.
Things do not appear to be going quite as swimmingly as the birthers predicted. Perhaps Carl was hasty in apologizing to Orly this morning.
Things never turn out as swimmingly as birthers predict… Yet they keep jumping off the high-dive into an empty pool. Sooner or later, you would think they would get the hint from smacking the concrete bottom so hard, every time…
I can’t imagine the Judge shortening the time for pleadings if he planned on going over everything Orly provides with a fine tooth comb.
“My head hurts. Who am I? How did I get in the bottom of this empty pool? Oh look! A diving board!!”
😉
Not to mention what she is likely to flood him with next week!
i think i read that her pleadings include over 300 pages of exhibits
Wow; shortening the submission deadline by 2 business days. Orly better get hopping. Malihi told her to put her own witness testimony in writing. Orly has a lot to submit by next Wed.
“Indeed if Judge Malihi was quoted fairly and accurately by two plaintiffs”
I don’t mean to suggest anyone deliberately lied. We don’t need to look for sinister motives where more practical ones will do just as well.
One of the theories going ’round FB is that the plaintiffs are misconstruing something Malihi said in chambers. Perhaps, it has been speculated, Malihi said something about a default order rather than default judgment.
It’s all speculation, of course, but there are a few facts that aren’t. First, this is an administrative fact-finding hearing, not a trial, and the ALJ is tasked with determining relevant facts, then making a recommondation — not handing down a judgment. ALJs don’t make judgments, therefore Malihi can’t have promised one.
Second, since the administrative court is part of the executive, not the judicial, branch, it is in se incapable of handing out judicial judgments of the kind Taitz, et alia are apparently contemplating.
A birther misunderstanding would be entirely in character. We need say no more of Orly’s inability to comprehend even simple legal tenets. And just today (well, yesterday, my time) Irion himself published an article entitled Is the Judicial Branch Dead?” over at the Liberty Legal Foundation, in which he laments repeatedly the death of the American judiciary as a result of Obama’s no-show.
Aside from the melodrama of his article, the one thing to take away from it is that Irion himself didn’t know which branch of government he was speaking to. He apparently believes he was arguing in front of a court of law.
So now we have incontrovertible proof that two of the three counsels present were utterly clueless (can Hatfield be far behind?). And given the level of incompetence both Taitz and (now) Irion have displayed, would there be any surprise at all at their having misaprehended something the judge said?
“…misaprehended something the judge said?”
.
conservativeactionalerts website headline states:
“Georgia Judge Orders Obama off the Ballot”
“Obama has LOST His First Court Case on Eligibility —”
.
then they have a page where you can send a fax to your state SOS only $40.00
that’s a good deal, kinda like the scam of selling slivers of Noah’s Ark for $40.00
(cut from an old railroad tie in Long Beach)
.
birthers are easy to scam, we should get in on it
GE
GEORGIA BALLOT CHALLENGE
The Georgia ballot challenge to Obama intends to have a court rule on the merits of the Constitutional question:
“Does the term “natural born citizen” in Article II of the Constitution, require that both parents of a Presidential candidate must have been U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born?”
Obama wants to avoid having a court rule on this question.
That is why he didn’t show up and ordered his attorneys to not show up.
He was hoping that the Georgia court would enter a default judgment rather than rule on the merits.
He does NOT want any court to rule on the factual basis for the court action.
If the court enters a default judgment, Obama will have succeeded in avoiding the Constitutional eligibility question. He will then appeal the default judgment, get the appellate court to suspend the default judgment pending appeal, and then delay the appeal until after the primary.
FORCES BEHIND THE SCENES
There are forces acting behind the scenes enabling and furthering their own agenda. What sort of forces would have the money to be able to completely subvert our legal system?
Logic leads directly to the forces that “create” our “money”. Since 1913, those people have literally stolen our republic from us.
Since 1913, our money has been “created” by the actions of private citizens (not the US Government). When ever a bank issues a loan – that money is “created”. The bank “loaning” the money does not need to have had to previously “earned” that money. That money does not even have to exist previous to the “loan”.
The bank doesn’t have to have gold in a vault somewhere to back the new money it is issuing.
When the bank issues a loan – that money is “created” simply through the action of a bank official writing down an amount.
So what sort of power do you think you’d have if you could “create” money simply by writing down a number?
That’s one of the biggest problems we face as individuals and as a nation.
They not only “create” our money – with their ill gotten gains they have purchased our entire news media and bribed our government away.
MASSIVELY OVER-REPRESENTED IN KEY POLICY MAKING POSITIONS
So who are these people?
It is instructive to note who controls, for example, the U.S. Treasury Department.
Timothy F. Geithner (Jew) – Secretary of the Treasury
Neal S. Wolin (Jew) – Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
Stuart A. Levey (Jew) – Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
Alan Krueger (Jew) – Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy
Michael S. Barr (Jew) – Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions
David S. Cohen (Jew) – Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing
Herbert M. Allison, Jr.(White European) – Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability and Counselor to the Secretary
Of the seven (7) top officials in the U.S. Treasury Department, six (6) are Jews. How many of these Jews are citizens of the Jewish Nation (Israel)?
This is a numerical representation of 86%.
Jews are approximately 2% of the United States population.
This means that Jews are over-represented among the top officials of the U.S. Treasury Department by a factor of 43 times, or 4,300 percent.
This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the top officials of the U.S. Treasury Department cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance.
You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents 2% of the American population could so completely dominate the U.S. Treasury Department.
NOT AN ISOLATED CASE
You may want to take a look at other key policy making positions within the government as well – and note who the people are who are holding those positions.
Prepare to vomit if you decide to look into the ownership of the various media outlets in the US – or management positions in ALL of the US Federal Reserve system member banks. They’re “kosher”.
POLICIES OF THE JEWISH NATION
Our perpetual wars against Israel’s enemies – where Israel fights using American soldiers are starting to make more sense now…aren’t they?
So is it “anti-Semitic” to state facts?
No, it’s not anti-Semitic to state facts.
For example, here’s a fact: you sound like a Nazi.
“So is it “anti-Semitic” to state facts?”
No….its anti-semitic to spout the following:
Prepare to vomit if you decide to look into the ownership of the various media outlets in the US – or management positions in ALL of the US Federal Reserve system member banks. They’re “kosher”.
POLICIES OF THE JEWISH NATION
Our perpetual wars against Israel’s enemies – where Israel fights using American soldiers are starting to make more sense now…aren’t they?
That’s because he cut and pasted most of that garbage from the odious Stormfront website.
I’m one of “those people”, Herr Pat. And you must be a pig because pigs aren’t kosher.
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/control_of_fed/fed_intro.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Economic_antisemitism
Not that it matters to people like Pat, but for the record, Tim Geithner is not Jewish. he was raised Episcopalian and is currently a member of the United Church of Christ. His paternal ancestors were non-Jewish Germans who emigrated to the US in the early 20th century and his maternal ancestors were American WASPs (his maternal grandfather, Charles Moore, was an advisor to Eisenhower).
It is astounding how Jews like Taitz and Berg can associate with a movement that has so many neo-Nazis, KKK and the like. All because they “think” Obama is anti-Israel, when in fact his policies have been the same as every President in the past 50 years-support, along with the mild criticism that one finds between friends.
It would be convenient if we could get the “Obama is terrible because he’s anti-Israel” people hooked up with the “Obama is terrible because he’s pro-Israel” people so they could yell at each other and leave the rest of us alone.
> So is it “anti-Semitic” to state facts?
You didn’t just “state facts”. You were inviting nasty conclusions from the facts you presented.
Let me give you an example:
Fact: Between the 1990/91 season and the 1997/98 season, the Chicago Bulls won 6 out of 8 championships (75%).
Fact: The Chicago Bulls are one of 30 teams in the NBA (3.3%).
Leading question: You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority TEAM that only represents 3% of the NBA could so completely dominate the CHAMPIONSHIPS.
(All-caps words showing where I replaced words in your question)
So, do I simply “state facts” or am I not rather making an inference of a “conspiracy” or “impropriety”? Something like “those Chicago crooks/thugs have been rigging the games from day 1”?
And that’s where it becomes, in your case, anti-Semitic.
I’m fascinated by the reference to Herbert M. Allison being a “white European.” It sounds sinister but it turns out to be a term favored by white supremacists. Allison’s father was an FBI agent and Allison was a Navy officer during the Vietnam War.
You may want to consider looking up the word “fact” in a good dictionary. I’m fairly certain that “speculation arising from conjecture” will not be one of the definitions provided.
Racist Pat’s information is out of date, too. Michael S. Barr left the Treasury Department more than a year ago and has resumed his position as a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.
http://web.law.umich.edu/_facultybiopage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=125
interestingly enough, a troll calling itself “TheWhiteEuropeans” just slithered onto one of my youtube threads a few days ago. i get very little traffic but during times when birfer victory is nigh and the smell of obama bulletsweat is in the air i always get a visit from a braying troll or three.