Main Menu

Birthers lose two more state ballot challenges

Challenges from two birthers in Illinois were overruled by the State Board of Elections today. I’ve written about the challenges by Freeman and Jackson, and how they were very similar to the arguments put forward in Georgia by Welden, Swensson and Powell. Obama’s representative in Illinois filed a copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate and that carried the day.

The  state ballot challenge score: Obama 4, Birthers 0.

103 Responses to Birthers lose two more state ballot challenges

  1. avatar
    JPotter February 2, 2012 at 11:28 pm #

    It would be interesting to know what form the copies of the LFBC took. What was in the recommendations looked terrible, certainly not a first generation photocopy of one of the certified copies from last April. We have no way of knowing how many generation whatever Obama’s team submitted pass through on its way into the PDF. But if all it took was, say printing off the WH PDF, then all that PDF Madness was in vain. (at least in these cases)

    And looking at the PDF from Illinois, despite being terribly low-res and compressed, it appears that it was indeed a print from the WH PDF!* LOL!

    * Same letters that are “enhanced” with a dark overlay in the WH PDF are darker in the IL PDF. The letters touching lines that passed over by the enhancement algorithm, are also light grey in the IL PDF. See ‘K’ in ‘Kenya’, box 11, and ‘D’ in ‘Dunham’, box 18a.

  2. avatar
    aarrgghh February 2, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

    a helpful suggestion:

    “This is actually good news, my FRiends.
    Eligibility is a super loser of an issue. It’s a Grand Snipe Hunt that Marxist Obama and his minders want us to pursue. I fully acknowledge that the BC issue is likely legit, but the dark forces can fog this in the courts for decades.

    A better issue exists!

    That better issue is Marxist Obama has never released his full, complete, unxpurgated, unedited, and unscrubbed college transcripts (including his full name right there on the official and unmodified documents).

    Please let go of the eligibility loser! Transcripts is the winning issue.”

  3. avatar
    JPotter February 2, 2012 at 11:41 pm #

    aarrgghh: a helpful suggestion:

    Do they really call each other “FRiends”? Wow. Silly hat and handshake, too?

    OK, I’ll play stupid: transcripts of what?

    I did like this comment, from yet another Vattel wannabe:

    To: Obama Exposer

    I cannot find the decisions on any of these cases on the site. It is not surprising. They probably used Amendment XIV along with the “he was born here” nonsense. This means all of the judges flunked grammar in grade school.

    17 posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:29:38 PM by devattel

  4. avatar
    John Reilly February 3, 2012 at 12:46 am #

    Yes, the whole birther experience has been brought to you by President Obama. It’s Mission Impossible 6.0, where Cruise takes off his fake face only to find another fake face underneath. It’s take convoluted.

  5. avatar
    Tomtech February 3, 2012 at 1:34 am #

    Administrative hearings assume accuracy of documents and testimony since those who present it are under oath or officers of the court.

    The aggrieved party has the right to go to a true court and challenge the resulting decision. If they believe the the document isn’t accurate, they can file in court to overturn the decision. If the challenge is deemed to have been proper, they have standing and can get the actual document into court if it’s accuracy is challenged and it was instrumental in the decision.

    There is the possibility that the judge will make a preliminary ruling which will effectively state that Obama’s eligibility isn’t for the ISBE to adjudge and therefore not relevant to any action in court.

    Go ahead, if they do it the right way and the judge decides that the ISBE can consider evidence related to constitutional eligibility, the physical COLB will be presented and can be examined. The information on it will be accepted due to full faith and credit. They will torpedo Vattelism and minor based on the “(a)s to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts” language. U. S. v Wong will prevail.

  6. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 3, 2012 at 4:10 am #

    http://chicagogop.com/home/there-is-an-aroma-at-the-chicago-board-of-election-commissioners.html#comments

    That is Steve Boulton, who helped birfers to file their suits against Obama, and probably authored the third suit by Meroni, claiming Obama did not have enough signatures. I guess he will now have enough time on his hands to do actual birfering.

    The irony!

  7. avatar
    The Magic M February 3, 2012 at 6:42 am #

    Tomtech: the physical COLB will be presented and can be examined

    But not by the birthers. Even if they manage to get the court to question the validity of the COLB (which will be close to impossible), the court would give it to a neutral forensic examiner. The plaintiffs don’t get to examine the document themselves or through their own experts.
    (At least that’s how it works in my country; is it the same in the US?)

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 7:38 am #

    In a real trial, defense experts can examine evidence, or at least they did on TV one time. However, we have rules as to what makes an expert, and the birthers don’t have any real ones. Unlike some countries, courts in the US don’t investigate.

    The Magic M: The plaintiffs don’t get to examine the document themselves or through their own experts.

  9. avatar
    The Magic M February 3, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    That’s what’s always puzzled me. Your legal system leaves it to judge or jury to decide whose expert is more credible. In my country, the parties’ experts are considered almost worthless (as it is assumed parties pick experts more likely to give testimony positive to them instead of a neutral POV) – there’s even a saying that roughly translates to “I sing the song of the one who pays me”.
    Therefore the court appoints a neutral expert to assess the matter, should the court be unable to judge the facts by its own expertise.
    (I understand one could make the argument it’s better for a judge/jury to hear both sides instead of more or less blindly following one expert, but ultimately it always boils down to “how can a layman decide if the expert is right or wrong?”)

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 10:12 am #

    The Supreme Court in the Daubert case and others, sets up criteria for experts. The process insures that expert testimony is by real experts who apply generally accepted practices in the interpretation of the evidence.

    That said, I was on a jury once where both sides presented expert witnesses (clinical psychologists) whose testimony was contradictory, and essential for deciding the case. Nevertheless, we muddled through and I am confident arrived at the right verdict.

    One of the things that helps laymen in the evaluation of experts is the cross-examination of the experts by the two parties.

    The Magic M: That’s what’s always puzzled me. Your legal system leaves it to judge or jury to decide whose expert is more credible

  11. avatar
    bob February 3, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    I’ve lost count: ballot challenges have been lost in New Hampshire, Alabama, and Illinois. What’s the fourth loss?

  12. avatar
    Obummermustgo February 3, 2012 at 12:14 pm #

    Senate Resolution 632 passed by Georgia in 2009So if obama remains in office, then we (the state of Georgia) have left ourselves a way out of his opression…by seceding from the Union…while you guys are stuck with “Lil’ Hitler…

    [Just so you know, any mention of the word “hitler” throws the comment into moderation. Doc.]

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    Two challenges in Illinois.

    bob: What’s the fourth loss?

  14. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    Obummermustgo: by seceding from the Union…

    Don’t let the screen door hit you in the back side.

  15. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

    And just to be clear about comedic potential of SR 632 . . .

    Obummermustgo: Senate Resolution 632 passed by Georgia in 2009

    Georgians, the rest of the country is laughing at you, former Gov. Roy Barnes says. And that means corporations are reluctant to relocate here and give you jobs.

    It’s because your state Legislature has done some wacky things, according to the Democrat’s latest campaign commercial, “Travel for Jobs.” In this bid to win his old job back, Barnes took us on a trip down memory lane to recall some of the Legislature’s stranger moments.

    “[I]t’s hard for industry to take us seriously when the Legislature attempts to outlaw stem cell research, passes bills about microchips in the brain and talks about seceding from the union,” an announcer said in the ad.

    http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2010/jul/11/roy-barnes/former-governor-roy-barnes-said-georgia-passed-lau/

  16. avatar
    bob February 3, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    If you are counting challenges (and not states in which there have been challenges), then Alabama counts as three losses alone.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Two challenges in Illinois.

  17. avatar
    JoZeppy February 3, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    Obummermustgo: Senate Resolution 632 passed by Georgia in 2009So if obama remains in office, then we (the state of Georgia) have left ourselves a way out of his opression…by seceding from the Union…while you guys are stuck with “Lil’ Hitler…[Just so you know, any mention of the word “hitler” throws the comment into moderation. Doc.]

    And how did secession work out for you the first time? I seem to recall it spurred a vistit from a certain guy named Sherman, who really lit up the twon.

    Oh, and another point…it’s a resolution. Big f’en deal. Resolutions are pretty meaningless when you get down to it. They’re used mostly to make some B.S. statement on behalf of the legislative body. it really does nothing.

    And finally, have you even read the resolution? First of all, it only purports to take effect when any of a certain list of enumerated acts by the Federal Government take place. The President’s re-election is not on the list. Secondly, since it is a resolution, it is merely a statement of how they think things are. The resolution says if any of those things happen, the Federal Government some how disappears, and all federal powers revert to the states. Not just Georgia, but the “several states.” This whole thing is just nutty grandstanding by a bunch of ignorant back water red-necks pandering to even more ignorant backwater rednecks. It’s really not woth the paper it’s written on. But hey, why am a suprised that a birther a) cites something he never really read, b) totally misrepresents what it says, and c) is generally clueless on a topic he feels free to make statements about?

  18. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate February 3, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    The Magic M: There’s even a saying that roughly translates to “I sing the song of the one who pays me”.

    “Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing.”
    (Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.)
    — Middle High German proverb
    http://www.anvari.org/fortune/Miscellaneous_Collections/303685_wes-brot-ich-ess-des-lied-ich-sing-whose-bread-i-eat-his-song-i-sing.html

  19. avatar
    1% Silver Nitrate February 3, 2012 at 1:40 pm #

    Obummermustgo: Senate Resolution 632 passed by Georgia in 2009So if obama remains in office, then we (the state of Georgia) have left ourselves a way out of his opression…by seceding from the Union.

    Where is General Sherman now that we need him?

  20. avatar
    Rickey February 3, 2012 at 2:25 pm #

    Obummermustgo:
    Senate Resolution 632 passed by Georgia in 2009So if obama remains in office, then we (the state of Georgia) have left ourselves a way out of his opression…by seceding from the Union…

    Because that worked out so well for you in 1861.

    But, assuming that your fantasy came true, let’s look at the consequences.

    A dozen U.S. military bases would close, causing the loss of thousands of jobs. And of course Georgia would need to raise its own military, and that costs money.

    Delta would have to move its hub from Atlanta to another state, because nobody is going to fly Delta if they need to go through immigration every time they have to change planes. More thousands of jobs down the drain.

    For what is left of the Atlanta airport, Georgia would have to hire and train its own air traffic controllers.

    Georgia would need to secure its borders, so be prepared to build and staff border crossings, an expensive proposition since you are bordered by four states.

    Most of Georgia’s electricity is generated by coal, but all of its coal is imported from other states. I see a serious balance of payments problem in your future.

    I could go on, but you get the point. Or maybe you don’t.

  21. avatar
    Reality Check February 3, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    I think there were three in Illinois. Meroni, Boulton, and Cleveland filed a challenge claiming President Obama failed to supply 3000 valid signatures on his petition. They withdrew the petition when the review was going against them. It is shown as “overruled” on the ILSBOE site. http://www.elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/CandDetail.aspx?CandidateID=17550&ElectionID=32

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Two challenges in Illinois.

  22. avatar
    donna February 3, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    scalia ALREADY WEIGHED IN on SECESSION

    TO WIT:

    I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

    http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/uploaded_images/Scalia-Turkewitz-Letter-763174.jpg

  23. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    So I hear that Judge Malihi ruled against the plaintiffs, determinging that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

  24. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    LOL! Too funny!

    Paul Pieniezny: http://chicagogop.com/home/there-is-an-aroma-at-the-chicago-board-of-election-commissioners.html#commentsThat is Steve Boulton, who helped birfers to file their suits against Obama, and probably authored the third suit by Meroni, claiming Obama did not have enough signatures. I guess he will now have enough time on his hands to do actual birfering.The irony!

  25. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

    Heck, if you are just counting challenges, then the number would really go up.

    In NH, there were several “copycat” attempts to remove Obama, after Orly lost there. All were instantly dismissed by stating that Orly’s case already resolved that issue. I think I heard about 2 copycat attempts, so that would make 3 in NH.

    As you mentioned AL was 3 similar cases as well.

    Further, IL would also be 3 cases. The 2 that were dismissed yesterday, plus the Meroni case, which was withdrawn the day before.

    Considering that there were 3 cases in GA… hmmm… I’m seeing a pattern of failure here… It seems Birther Ballot Failures come in threes…

    bob: If you are counting challenges (and not states in which there have been challenges), then Alabama counts as three losses alone.

  26. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 4:52 pm #

    Any link you can provide??

    Arthur: So I hear that Judge Malihi ruled against the plaintiffs, determinging that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

  27. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    Yeah, the news is posted at Obama Release Your Records. Links is at the bottom of this page.

  28. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    Interesting that there were so many negative comments against Judge Malihi around the blogosphere (I saw quite a few at Fogbow). Some of the legal discussions centered around the idea that Judge Malihi has no authority to decide constitutional issues. He done decided a constitutional issue citing…. Ankeny of all things.

    So, is Mahili still the jerk he was portrayed to be in the eyes of the so-called “obots”?

  29. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    Question: if plaintiffs appeal the decision, will the appeals court state that the judge had no authority to make the constitutional determination?

    What is the word on the burden of proof issue?

  30. avatar
    JoZeppy February 3, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

    charo: So, is Mahili still the jerk he was portrayed to be in the eyes of the so-called “obots”?

    I still take issue his handling of the issue. He let the hearing turn into a circus. I personally would have put the smack down on Orly. But on the other hand, I think his smack down of Jablonski was appropriate. Jablonski should have taken his filings more seriously, although in retrospect, Jablonski removing himself entirely from the proceedings turned out better than I though, so I will concede he was right there.

  31. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

    charo: So, is Mahili still the jerk he was portrayed to be in the eyes of the so-called “obots”?

    I don’t think you’ll find anything here that was said against Malihi; in fact, Dr. C. commented that he had nothing negative to say about the Judge or his handling of the hearing. There was, on the other hand, some initial criticism of Jablonski’s refusal to participate.

  32. avatar
    richCares February 3, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    add Georgia
    Ruling:
    President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary
    signed Michael M. Malihi

    link to scribd:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

  33. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    Arthur: I don’t think you’ll find anything here that was said against Malihi; in fact, Dr. C. commented that he had nothing negative to say about the Judge or his handling of the hearing. There was, on the other hand, some initial criticism of Jablonski’s refusal to participate.

    I was negative on him and still am. There was no need to allow testimony on unrelated issues, to allow Orly to take the stand, allow reidiculous subpoenas to go out, or any of the other nonsense. He could have entertained arguments on the constitutional issues and I’m sure that had he done so, Jablonski would have attended and argued his case. He made the right decision, but could have handled it a lot better.

  34. avatar
    donna February 3, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

    burden of proof?

    malihi relied on the birther arkeny decision which was dismissed and affirmed

  35. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

    Re the Malihi decision . . . I wonder how long we’ll have to wait for Carl Swennson to come back and acknowlege that his predictions about the hearing were wrong? My feeling is that we have a better chance of seeing Jesus return than hearing Carl say he was mistaken.

  36. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm #

    Well, charo, I was mistaken–but I’m not too proud to admit it.

    Scientist: I was negative on him and still am. There was no need to allow testimony on unrelated issues, to allow Orly to take the stand, allow reidiculous subpoenas to go out, or any of the other nonsense. He could have entertained arguments on the constitutional issues and I’m sure that had he done so, Jablonski would have attended and argued his case. He made the right decision, but could have handled it a lot better.

  37. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 5:19 pm #

    donna:
    burden of proof?

    malihi relied on the birther arkeny decision which was dismissed and affirmed

    That is not what I meant. There was a specific issue raised. I would guess by his decision, he ruled that the Plaintiffs had the burden of proof. I’m not sure, though, because it sounds like he would have entered a default judgment against P. Obama had the plaintiffs not requested to go forward.

  38. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

    Scientist: I was negative on him and still am.There was no need to allow testimony on unrelated issues, to allow Orly to take the stand, allow reidiculous subpoenas to go out, or any of the other nonsense.He could have entertained arguments on the constitutional issues and I’m sure that had he done so, Jablonski would have attended and argued his case.He made the right decision, but could have handled it a lot better.

    You obviously don’t have much experience in the legal system. You can’t ignore parties/lawyers because you think they’re clowns.

  39. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

    JoZeppy: He let the hearing turn into a circus.

    Not really. He limited Orly’s time and considered her case properly, as indicated by the outcome. He comes out looking pretty good here.

  40. avatar
    donna February 3, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    the bottom line: taitz et al have argued their cases have never been decided on the merits

    as malihi said he decided based on the law, evidence and arguments presented

  41. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 5:28 pm #

    donna:
    the bottom line: taitz et al have argued their cases have never been decided on the merits

    as malihi said he decided based on the law, evidence and arguments presented

    There was discussion at Fogbow (I think it was there, maybe here) when some feared he would come out with a different ruling that he had no authority whatsoever to decide constitutional issues.

  42. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 3, 2012 at 5:31 pm #

    G: Further, IL would also be 3 cases. The 2 that were dismissed yesterday, plus the Meroni case, which was withdrawn the day before.

    No, that Meroni case was not a birther case, but a “normal” challenge that claimed that many signatures Obama had filed to be on the ballot were invalid for some reason or other, so that he did not have enough of them.

    I understand that some people get confused, when you know Meroni is a birther, filed birther-like suits against tens of other candidates in Illinois (“birth certificate, please” was the most frequent objection) – all but two of which she also withdrew, and because of the way they contested Obama’s signatures (for instance, claiming the documents had been improperly attached together).

    I know that I wrote somewhere before that Boulton, the Republican candidate who was supporting Meroni, has claimed to “go constitutional” now, but I must confess that another Paul at the Fogbow now thinks that that did not necessarily refer to Obama, but to the two other candidates that Meroni (and Boulton) still have a problem with. I am not sure, because I thought Meroni had already “gone constitutional” over those two, but who knows.

    We shall see. Some birther sites were alluding to the fact that Michael Jackson is disabled, cannot appeal without a lawyer, cannot afford a lawyer. So, hit that penpal, birfers!

    So, the correct number of birther suits from Illinois is two, which could be appealed.

  43. avatar
    donna February 3, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

    “There was discussion at Fogbow (I think it was there, maybe here) when some feared he would come out with a different ruling that he had no authority whatsoever to decide constitutional issues.”

    i think by relying on arkeny ….. STARE DECISIS

  44. avatar
    JoZeppy February 3, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

    charo: You obviously don’t have much experience in the legal system. You can’t ignore parties/lawyers because you think they’re clowns.

    You can’t ignore them, but he does have power to reign them in. While he does give Orly a bitch slap in his decision, he could have done some of that at the hearing (a simple, “how is this testiomy remotely relevant?” would have been appropriate). I also think he should have called her out for her abuse of subpoenas. And do agree with his calling out Jablonski though….he was a slacker.

  45. avatar
    donna February 3, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

    “And do agree with his calling out Jablonski though….he was a slacker.”

    i think malihi was OBLIGATED to call out jablonski

    but, in the end, it was a smart move by jablonski to not contribute to this circus

    so jablonski got a slap on the wrist

    the end result HE WON

  46. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

    donna:
    “There was discussion at Fogbow (I think it was there, maybe here) when some feared he would come out with a different ruling that he had no authority whatsoever to decide constitutional issues.”

    i think by relying on arkeny ….. STARE DECISIS

    donna,

    You don’t have a clue what I am talking about. There was discussion as to whether Judge Malihi had the authority to address the constitutional issue at all, no matter which way he went (which some were insinuating could be a “birther” decision.

    Stare decisis doesn’t make sense for this discussion. Additionally, if you read the decision, Judge Mahili noted that Ankeny was not controlling (stare decisis) but persuasive.

  47. avatar
    donna February 3, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    and then malihi said relying on the constitution and the analyses of minor and wong the indiana court concluded ……

    and therefore, as discussed in arkeny …blah blah

  48. avatar
    JoZeppy February 3, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

    donna: but, in the end, it was a smart move by jablonski to not contribute to this circus
    so jablonski got a slap on the wrist
    the end result HE WON

    I think if Jablonski did his job a little more dilligently, it would have taken away from the circus. How about starting with citing actual law in a motion to quash? That’s my biggest beef with him. So you get the subpoena issue out of the way, show up to the hearing. Object to every witness that shows up as being totally unqualifed, and right there, he has the ability to take control. Jablonski is equally to blame for the circus as is the judge.

    He won…but if the birthers didn’t insist on putting up their case, I really don’t know what the effects of a default are in a case like this. So he can thank birther stupidity to a large degree as well.

  49. avatar
    donna February 3, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    had malihi ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor and entered a default judgment, then what?

    the SOS already stated this:

    The GEORGIA Secretary of State is NOT PERMITTED to remove President Obama from the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot under Terry v. Handel, 08cv158774S.

    Rhonda M. Brown
    Operations Coordinator
    SECRETARY OF STATE Elections Division

    Recently, a lawsuit was filed claiming that Mr. Obama is not qualified to run for President and should not appear on Georgia’s ballot.

    See Terry v. Handel, In the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, Civil Action File No. 2008CV158774.

    On October 24, 2008, the Court entered an Order recognizing that in Georgia, as elsewhere in the United States, voters cast their ballots for “presidential electors,” rather than directly for a candidate, when voting for the office of President of the United States.

    See, e.g., U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 3; O.C.G.A. § 21-2-172.

    Because of this, the Secretary of State of Georgia DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REFUSE to allow someone to be listed as a candidate for President of the United States when such individual has been properly nominated by a political party.

    See O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-172 to 21-2-200.

    Rather, Georgia law imposes duties simply for the examination of presidential electors. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-172.

    The political parties’ candidates for President of the United States are typically determined through a political party’s convention.

    O.C.G.A. § 21-2-191 to 21-2-200.

    Therefore, any concerns you may have regarding the qualifications of Mr. Obama to remain on Georgia’s ballot as a candidate for President of the United States should be directed to the Democratic National Party.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/s

  50. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 3, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    JoZeppy: charo: So, is Mahili still the jerk he was portrayed to be in the eyes of the so-called “obots”?

    I still take issue his handling of the issue. He let the hearing turn into a circus. I personally would have put the smack down on Orly. But on the other hand, I think his smack down of Jablonski was appropriate. Jablonski should have taken his filings more seriously, although in retrospect, Jablonski removing himself entirely from the proceedings turned out better than I though, so I will concede he was right there.

    My sentiments almost exactly. I said at the time Malihi was getting too big for his Confederate Army boots – and I still think so. He probably relished the thought of being the first judge to let the birthers discuss the merits and then smack them down. If he thinks that will be the end of it, he is going to be unpleasantly surprised. And I hope he gets protection.

    As for Jablonski, I would have expected him to send some underling (a guy fresh from law school, but not from Taft) to the hearing with four copies of both the COLB and the Ankeny printout, and instructions to do absolutely nothing else but hand those out. Political capital is best made when acting normal.

    As it turned out, a copy of the Ankeny verdict might have helped Malihi. But only to spell the name correctly (if we can trust the birther sites who are now claiming defeat and treason).

  51. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    donna:
    and then malihi said relying on the constitution and the analyses of minor and wong the indiana court concluded ……

    and therefore, as discussed in arkeny …blah blah

    donna,

    I am trying to think of how how to explain the issue. If Judge Mahili had ruled for plaintiffs and found that P.Obama was not a natural born citizen, then there would be arguments that the judge had no AUTHORITY to make that finding. Judge Mahili did rule on a constitutional issue. The plaintiffs are not going to argue that he had no authority; they want to be able to appeal. Judge Mahil was persuaded by the Ankeny court decision; he could have rejected it also, if you believe he had the authority to decide it in the first place. Ankeny is a state court decision; it’s holding is not binding in Georgia.

  52. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: He probably relished the thought of being the first judge to let the birthers discuss the merits and then smack them down.

    Another person with a mind reading degree!

  53. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 6:04 pm #

    JoZeppy: So he can thank birther stupidity to a large degree as well.

    The plaintiffs (sans Orly-she just likes to spout) knew that if they received a favorable ruling, it would be appealed. If the judge were going to rule against P. Obama had the plaintiffs not presented a case (which he seems to be alluding to), it seems to me it would be because he saw the burden as belonging to the defendant (which I see as definitely an issue for appeal). It doesn’t seem like it was a screw up for plaintiffs to assume their case would be appealed.

  54. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 6:09 pm #

    charo: You obviously don’t have much experience in the legal system. You can’t ignore parties/lawyers because you think they’re clowns

    charo-Have you ever seen a plaintiff’s lawyer sworn in and take the stand? I mean outside of a movie? It sounds like something out of Danny deVito in “My Cousin Vinny”

  55. avatar
    Obsolete February 3, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    charo: If Judge Mahili had ruled for plaintiffs and found that P.Obama was not a natural born citizen, then there would be arguments that the judge had no AUTHORITY to make that finding.

    As I understand it, the issue would have been if Judge Mahili ruled against Obama citing Minor, as that would have been against existing law and precedents. Since he followed the Constitution etc., no problem.

    In other words, he would have been what the right-wing calls an “activist judge” if he went against established law.

  56. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    You have to be fairly incompetent attorneys to lose to an empty table and obviously too clueless to comprehend that what you were presenting to the court was asinine, irrelevant, erroneous and a complete waste of the court’s time.

    That doggone confirmation bias makes people do pretty stupid things.

  57. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 6:15 pm #

    Scientist: charo-Have you ever seen a plaintiff’s lawyer sworn in and take the stand?I mean outside of a movie?It sounds like something out ofDanny deVito in “My Cousin Vinny”

    I am reminded of an experience when I clerked at the trial court level. A prisoner was attempting to make a case out of something or other. He was in part trying to allege that he was being poisoned by the prison food. Suddenly during his testimony, he reached into his sock for “the evidence,” a powdery substance rolled up in a tissue. Two sheriffs were ready to bring him down as soon as he reached for the sock. The judge calmly told the bailiff to bring the evidence forward at which time, the judge entered the “exhibit” into evidence.

    The prisoner was heard. Did he win? No, but he was heard.

  58. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Obsolete: As I understand it, the issue would have been if Judge Mahili ruled against Obama citing Minor, as that would have been against existing law and precedents. Since he followed the Constitution etc., no problem.

    In other words, he would have been what the right-wing calls an “activist judge” if he went against established law.

    I read several times that he has no authority to consider constitutional issues. That would apply no matter which side he came down on.

  59. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Here is the link by the way http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

    I hope the birthers appeal. It will be good to add Georgia courts to Indiana (neiither of which is a radical pro-Obama state, by the way). In fact, if someone wants to take it to the US Supremes, be my guest, though I strongly doubt they will hear it.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 6:18 pm #

    Hmmm, maybe I should put in moderation any comment that mentions “Sherman.” Them’s fightin’ words.

    JoZeppy: Sherman,

  61. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    Scientist:
    Here is the link by the way http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

    I hope the birthers appeal.It will be good to add Georgia courts to Indiana (neiither of which is a radical pro-Obama state, by the way).In fact, if someone wants to take it to the US Supremes, be my guest, though I strongly doubt they will hear it.

    I am curious as to whether they plan to go through with an appeal. Another watch and wait and speculate.

  62. avatar
    JoZeppy February 3, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    Scientist: It sounds like something out of Danny deVito in “My Cousin Vinny”

    Hey….don’t know My Cousin Vinny…..some aspects of that movie were spot on (my expert witness class in law school actually used the voir dire of his girlfriend as a decent example of establishing/limiting the testimony of an expert witness).

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    But how could he not consider constitutional issues? The crux of the case is whether Obama meets the state criterion (which is to be constitutionally eligible). He has to know what “eligible” means before he can see if the facts make Obama eligible or not. If the judge understands that there is a citizen parent requirement, then the facts make Obama ineligible. If there is no citizen parent requirement, then he is.

    charo: I read several times that he has no authority to consider constitutional issues. That would apply no matter which side he came down on.

  64. avatar
    Rickey February 3, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    charo:

    If Judge Mahili had ruled for plaintiffs and found that P.Obama was not a natural born citizen, then there would be arguments that the judge had no AUTHORITY to make that finding.Judge Mahili did rule on a constitutional issue.

    Yes, but those arguments were made by people who have no connection with the case. We have no idea what arguments Jablonski would have made if Malihi had ruled against Obama.

    As for the default angle, it still is unclear to me what a default judgment would have meant in a case such as this.This isn’t a contract case where a defendant fails to appear and the plaintiff then automatically obtains a judgment for the amount alleged to be owed. Personally, I feel that Jablonski’s actions were more akin to resting his case without putting on any witnesses after the plaintiff’s case is concluded than with defaulting. Jablonski did, after all, enter an appearance for Obama and filed a motion on Obama’s behalf.

    As for the burden of proof, Malihi doesn’t directly address that but it is clear from his decision that the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs.

    In defense of Judge Malihi, I will add that his decision is very well-reasoned and it shows that he has a better grasp of the issues than many had assumed. He also gave absolutely no credence to Orly’s witnesses, and he pretty much smacks Orly down for failing to even attempt to qualify them as experts.

  65. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    But how could he not consider constitutional issues? The crux of the case is whether Obama meets the state criterion (which is to be constitutionally eligible). He has to know what “eligible” means before he can see if the facts make Obama eligible or not. If the judge understands that there is a citizen parent requirement, then the facts make Obama ineligible. If there is no citizen parent requirement, then he is.

    The issue was very muddy for me as to what issue should have been allowed to be appealed. From what I understand from a blogger named jbjd, South Carolina has an even more distinct statute concerning objections on eligibility. She felt that the issue should have been centered on whoever certified Obama as eligible. I have a hard time following her roundabout way of explaining, but I haven’t invested a whole lot of time doing so. Maybe it is more clear with a good read and not the scanning that I tend to do.

  66. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    Rickey: As for the default angle, it still is unclear to me what a default judgment would have meant in a case such as this.

    I wonder that as well. Knocking a sitting President that the law says is eligible (which is what the judge said) off the ballot is a serious step. I don’t think you do that merely because counsel boycotts a hearing. And keep in mind, ALL the evidence presented at the hearing was, in Mailihi’s opinion, worthless. The only arguments he gave serious study too were the constitutional ones in the plaintiff’s briefs. The hearing was a nullity, legally speaking.

  67. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Rickey: As for the burden of proof, Malihi doesn’t directly address that but it is clear from his decision that the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs.

    In a way, it appears so, but the fact that he was going to enter a judgment against Obama seems to indicate he felt that defendant had the burden, How else could he make a default judgment?

  68. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 3, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

    charo: Question: if plaintiffs appeal the decision, will the appeals court state that the judge had no authority to make the constitutional determination?

    As a member of the executive branch, even if he is a judge, civil servant Malihi cannot interpret the law but he is supposed to follow it (that was the claim that was made). Ankeny may only be persuasive, but it is built on Wong Kim Ark which is decisive. All the first two lawyers were giving him in rebuttal, was a misquote from a SCOTUS decision that preceded Wong Kim Ark.

    Of course, a point could always be made that the judge did not have the right to consider Ankeny persuasive or to read the Minor misquote till the end of the relevant paragraph.There we go, to appeal.

    But wait, it is not Malihi who can be appealed (though knowing Orly, she may try), but the decision of the SOS of Georgia. While many of us expected Kemp to overrule a negative decision by Malihi if based on default and/or on residency conditions, no one really expects Kemp to rule Obama ineligible now.

    There is another reason why some thought Malihi did not have the authority to rule on Obama’s eligibility: people are not voting for Obama but for a slate of electors to the convention, and the Democratic Party of Georgia did not certify these electors as bound to Obama. In his Motion to Dismiss, Jablonski at least hinted at this.

    If both Malihi and the SOS had gone against Obama, both these constitutional arguments (administrative judge cannot interpret constitutionablity, the election is not about Obama) would have been used by Jablonski before the Superior Court of Georgia. Apart from some other things, like perhaps even the long form instead of the COLB.

    Now that the birthers will have to appeal against Kemp to the Superior Court, who will raise these objections? The birther lawyers? Not very likely, since it would mean they had no case to start with. Kemp? Unlikely, since it would mean he should not have handed the case to Malihi in the first place. Apart from him claiming a conversion on the road to Damascus, none of the parties is going to raise it. But the court always has to establsih justiciability, and they may be tempted to get rid of this hot potato as fast as possible.

  69. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 3, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Scientist: It sounds like something out of Danny deVito in “My Cousin Vinny

    I guess you do not like Woody Allen.

  70. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    charo: I am curious as to whether they plan to go through with an appeal. Another watch and wait and speculate.

    I will be happy to bet $10,000-and it would hurt me more to lose it than it would hurt Romney-that an appeal would be soundly rejected. Despite the machinations of the birthers the Ankeny court’s ruling WAS persuasive, and no court from Traffic Court to the US Supreme Court is going to conclude differently. If the birthers want their interpretation to prevail, they will have to do the hard work of amending the Constitution, rather than trying to back-door it through the courts. Good luck with that..

  71. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 3, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    Obsolete: As I understand it, the issue would have been if Judge Mahili ruled against Obama citing Minor, as that would have been against existing law and precedents. Since he followed the Constitution etc., no problem

    ^ This.

    Malihi has no authority to depart from established precedent, or to make new law. If he wants to quote from the opinions of courts with competent jurisdiction & say that he is following that – of course he can do that. His job is to make findings of facts & conclusions of law, in accordance with already established law.

  72. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: Unlikely, since it would mean he should not have handed the case to Malihi in the first place. Apart from him claiming a conversion on the road to Damascus, none of the parties is going to raise it. But the court always has to establsih justiciability, and they may be tempted to get rid of this hot potato as fast as possible.

    That is what I was thinking, but I wonder how far the court would go. The Ankeny court said it would have found McCain eligible, even though his case was not at issue. There may be some interesting dicta.

  73. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: I guess you do not like Woody Allen.

    Yes, he did that. And it was hilarious. I love Woody Allen, of course.

  74. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

    charo: The Ankeny court said it would have found McCain eligible, even though his case was not at issue

    Did they? i don’t recall that. I suspect they would have, but I thought they left the issue unresolved.

  75. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    Expelliarmus: Malihi has no authority to depart from established precedent,

    Ankeny is not established precedent, but of course Judge Malihi followed the same reasoning and found the underlying cases controlling. It would be fantastic to have this appealed and well-settled officially and directly with no room for doubt. I wouldn’t expect the Supreme Court to get involved because this does impact the immigration issue; there is still no immigration policy moving forward.

  76. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 3, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: : people are not voting for Obama but for a slate of electors to the convention, and the Democratic Party of Georgia did not certify these electors as bound to Obama. I

    No, actually there is no “slate” — the Democrats won’t begin selecting delegates until April. The purpose of the preference primary is to provide guidance to the Democrats in the selection of those delegates.

    That is, in 2008, after the primary, the Democrats held local caucuses and elected delegates in proportion to the way the votes were split between Obama & Clinton. If, for example, Clinton had 40% of the vote and Obama had 60%, and a given electoral district could choose 3 delegates, the there would have been 2 spots for delegates pledged to Obama, and 1 spot to delegates pledged to Clinton.

    Since Obama has no opposition this time around, in April the Georgia Democratic party will select delegates who will go to the convention and vote for Obama whether a primary is held or not.

  77. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    Scientist: Did they?i don’t recall that.I suspect they would have, but I thought they left the issue unresolved.

    It WOULD have, meaning it was still unresolved; you are correct.

  78. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

    Scientist: I will be happy to bet $10,000-and it would hurt me more to lose it than it would hurt Romney-that an appeal would be soundly rejected.Despite the machinations of the birthers the Ankeny court’s ruling WAS persuasive, and no court from Traffic Court to the US Supreme Court is going to conclude differently.If the birthers want their interpretation to prevail, they will have to do the hard work of amending the Constitution, rather than trying to back-door it through the courts.Good luck with that..

    There are only so many avenues for appeals. It would take some extremely ugly event for the Constitution to be amended.

  79. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 3, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    charo: Ankeny is not established precedent

    Wong Kim Ark is.

  80. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 3, 2012 at 6:59 pm #

    Scientist: Despite the machinations of the birthers the Ankeny court’s ruling WAS persuasive, and no court from Traffic Court to the US Supreme Court is going to conclude differently.

    http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2009/11/ind_decisions_r_34.html

    Someone who was at the beginning of it all, by providing a forum to discuss McCain’s eligibility, is using an interesting word there.

  81. avatar
    Rickey February 3, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

    charo: In a way, it appears so, but the fact that he was going to enter a judgment against Obama seems to indicate he felt that defendant had the burden,How else could he make a default judgment?

    That was my point – I don’t know what a default judgment would mean in the context of an administrative hearing. Would it mean that Malihi would have ignored the law and given the plaintiffs what they wanted? I doubt it. I suspect that the default order would have been more along the lines of a preclusion order, where he would simply say that the defendants had forfeited their right to put on a case and the plaintiffs could have made their case by putting everything in writing instead of calling witnesses and making oral arguments.

    Obviously, Malihi placed no burden on the defendant because the defendant did nothing and still won the case.

  82. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    Expelliarmus: Wong Kim Ark is.

    No, I mean an Ankeny decision at a federal level, a case that directly involves presidential eligibility, a case where one can scream and say no fair.

    I read yesterday that Farrar (sp?) said he would not appeal of Judge Mahili finds against the plaintiffs. I forgot about that.

  83. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    and say no fair and nothing else

  84. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 3, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

    Scientist: charo: The Ankeny court said it would have found McCain eligible, even though his case was not at issue

    Did they? i don’t recall that. I suspect they would have, but I thought they left the issue unresolved.

    In fact, I think you are right:

    “That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.”

    So, no more than a slight hint that he may be eligible.

    http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    In the note below McCain’s, they mention Chester Arthur!

  85. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

    Rickey: Obviously, Malihi placed no burden on the defendant because the defendant did nothing and still won the case.

    By putting on a case, though, the plaintiffs changed the picture somehow in the Judge’s mind according to his opinion.

  86. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

    Paul Pieniezny: So, no more than a slight hint that he may be eligible.

    I would say more than that.

  87. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    charo: No, I mean an Ankeny decision at a federal level, a case that directly involves presidential eligibility, a case where one can scream and say no fair.

    charo-the birthers could have appealed Ankeny to the US Supreme Court after the Indiana Supreme Court denied review. They didn’t. But if they had, it’s almost certain, the US Supreme Court would not have heard arguments, because they would only do so if 2 states disagreed or if they strongly disagreed with what the states had done (which it’s pretty clear they don’t), Even if they decided to hear it, they could say it’s up to Congress.

    I actually fail to see why there must be a Supreme Court ruling. Not everything requires one. There is the precedent of 2 Presidents with non-citizen fathers, the secoond of whom is looking like a good bet for re-electiion after today’s jobs report. There may be a vice-Presidential nominee with no citizen parents. This is being resolved through the political system as it should be

  88. avatar
    JoZeppy February 3, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    charo: Ankeny is not established precedent, but of course Judge Malihi followed the same reasoning and found the underlying cases controlling. It would be fantastic to have this appealed and well-settled officially and directly with no room for doubt. I wouldn’t expect the Supreme Court to get involved because this does impact the immigration issue; there is still no immigration policy moving forward.

    You’re right entirely about Ankeny….and more to the point, Malihi’s decision is equally does nothing to establish any precedent…It’s an ALJ making a recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State.

    But I still argue that the precedent is clearly WKA. Ankeny and Malihi’s decision ultimately rest on WKA. I think most of the legal community (with the exception of a handful of nutters) read WKA as establishing that jus soli is the law of the land pretty much since WKA was decided. Just because there had never been a decision on Presidential eligibility doesn’t erase the common law going back to Calvin’s Case.

  89. avatar
    charo February 3, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

    Scientist: charo-the birthers could have appealed Ankeny to the US Supreme Court after the Indiana Supreme Court denied review.

    That depends on the financial situation of the plaintiffs. As for a banding together and fund raising? Too many personalities with too much baggage for that kind of organized effort.

    Scientist: I actually fail to see why there must be a Supreme Court ruling. Not everything requires one.

    I like the idea of the rule of law regarding that issue. It is not a dog leash law, but the eligibility of the President. I don’t see that as a burdensome issue to be spelled out clearly.

    I have an all day class tomorrow and am not ready. It’s been an interesting conversation.

  90. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

    JoZeppy: But I still argue that the precedent is clearly WKA. Ankeny and Malihi’s decision ultimately rest on WKA. I think most of the legal community (with the exception of a handful of nutters) read WKA as establishing that jus soli is the law of the land

    But wasn’t jus soli already the law of the land before WKA? Suppose there had never been Chinese exclusion laws and therefore no WKA. Wouldn’t that still mean anyone born here is a citizen?

  91. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    Charo, to be fair, there were lots of speculative negative opinions of BOTH Judge Malihi AND Obama’s defense lawyer, Jablonski. Throw in SoS Kemp too.

    I expressed quite a few myself. If you read through the context of those charges, you’ll see that most of them are simply criticizing the escalating side show potential that this perceived pissing contest was causing and that there were wiser and quicker ways to deal with this nonsense instead of letting the freak flag fly on full parade.

    There was also legitimate concern that the pissing contest between Jablonski and Judge Malihi could be used as an excuse to issue a bad “default” ruling, simply because Jablonski wouldn’t play along with this charade.

    The judge validated that possibility was considered in his ruling. So yeah, we dodged a bullet by having the judge have to actually rule on the “evidence” of the plaintiff’s case and not simply decide to pull a lazy technicality to make a bad “default” ruling that would have just have to be overturned at some later point…for the same underpinning reasons that Judge Maliki came to now.

    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.

    By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct
    or legal scholarship of Defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely
    based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.

    So Charo, the perceived speculative concerns were going to happen, until we knew what mindset the judge actually had. Until he gave a ruling, that was unknown. The ruling itself doesn’t make him a great person or a bad person, regardless.

    It simply demonstrates that he was able to do the work of properly evaluating and writing a response to the claims made and move past the technicality excuse that the defense put in his lap as an option.

    it is a good ruling because it deals with the issues put in front of him and follows the reason of the law. Simple as that.

    charo: Interesting that there were so many negative comments against Judge Malihi around the blogosphere (I saw quite a few at Fogbow). Some of the legal discussions centered around the idea that Judge Malihi has no authority to decide constitutional issues. He done decided a constitutional issue citing…. Ankeny of all things.
    So, is Mahili still the jerk he was portrayed to be in the eyes of the so-called “obots”?

  92. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    charo: I like the idea of the rule of law regarding that issue. It is not a dog leash law, but the eligibility of the President. I don’t see that as a burdensome issue to be spelled out clearly.

    Ankeny and Malihi spelled it out pretty clearly. Laws don’t all have to be heard before the Supreme Court to be clear and valid. In case you missed it, this is the law- born in the USA = eligiible for President. Born outside the US to US ciitizen parents = probably eligible but won’t be resolved until someone in that siituation gets elected.

  93. avatar
    justlw February 3, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    Just to set the record straight:

    Joe Pesci.

    Thank you.

  94. avatar
    Rickey February 3, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    charo: By putting on a case, though, the plaintiffs changed the picture somehow in the Judge’s mind according to his opinion.

    Not really. Somebody at Fogbow has pointed out that Mahili’s decision says that he was prepared to enter a default ORDER, not a default JUDGMENT.

  95. avatar
    Obsolete February 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    charo: it would be fantastic to have this appealed and well-settled officially and directly with no room for doubt.

    There is no authority in Heaven or on Earth that the birthers would agree with if they ruled Obama was a NBC.
    Not the Supreme Court,
    Not The United Nations,
    Not George Washington brought back from the dead (like on SNL),
    and not Jesus himself.

    They would all become “traitors” or “bought off” or their new favorite- “cowards who are too scared to do the right thing because they fear race riots”.

    Repeat- There is no authority ANYWHERE the birthers will accept if their finding does not agree with them.

    They are too emotionally invested to ever walk away from this. Picture a court making a ruling that a certain deity doesn’t exist (whether Jesus, Buddha, Ganesh, etc.). Would followers of that deity/religion simply give up their beliefs, or would they call the court wrong?

  96. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    That is my understanding and impression on this particular issue as well. What he simply did in this case is explain existing legal reasoning; not try to break any new ground.

    Obsolete: As I understand it, the issue would have been if Judge Mahili ruled against Obama citing Minor, as that would have been against existing law and precedents. Since he followed the Constitution etc., no problem.In other words, he would have been what the right-wing calls an “activist judge” if he went against established law.

  97. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    Then again, jbjd has a long history of making very legal sounding Birther claims that never seem to pan out or hold up…

    …so I would take anything jbjd says with a grain of salt. Jbjd simply is another anoymous person on the internet who comes across as a know-it-all; yet who never turns out to be right when anything actually goes to court…

    Just more junk pseudo-law online opinions that haven’t earned any credence to be given merit. See: Donofrio, Apuzzo, MichaelN, etc. for similar examples of such blowhards.

    charo: From what I understand from a blogger named jbjd,

  98. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    Great analysis. I agree with how you layed it all out.

    Paul Pieniezny: As a member of the executive branch, even if he is a judge, civil servant Malihi cannot interpret the law but he is supposed to follow it (that was the claim that was made). Ankeny may only be persuasive, but it is built on Wong Kim Ark which is decisive. All the first two lawyers were giving him in rebuttal, was a misquote from a SCOTUS decision that preceded Wong Kim Ark.Of course, a point could always be made that the judge did not have the right to consider Ankeny persuasive or to read the Minor misquote till the end of the relevant paragraph.There we go, to appeal.But wait, it is not Malihi who can be appealed (though knowing Orly, she may try), but the decision of the SOS of Georgia. While many of us expected Kemp to overrule a negative decision by Malihi if based on default and/or on residency conditions, no one really expects Kemp to rule Obama ineligible now.There is another reason why some thought Malihi did not have the authority to rule on Obama’s eligibility: people are not voting for Obama but for a slate of electors to the convention, and the Democratic Party of Georgia did not certify these electors as bound to Obama. In his Motion to Dismiss, Jablonski at least hinted at this.If both Malihi and the SOS had gone against Obama, both these constitutional arguments (administrative judge cannot interpret constitutionablity, the election is not about Obama) would have been used by Jablonski before the Superior Court of Georgia. Apart from some other things, like perhaps even the long form instead of the COLB. Now that the birthers will have to appeal against Kemp to the Superior Court, who will raise these objections? The birther lawyers? Not very likely, since it would mean they had no case to start with. Kemp? Unlikely, since it would mean he should not have handed the case to Malihi in the first place. Apart from him claiming a conversion on the road to Damascus, none of the parties is going to raise it. But the court always has to establsih justiciability, and they may be tempted to get rid of this hot potato as fast as possible.

  99. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 3, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

    charo: No, I mean an Ankeny decision at a federal level, a case that directly involves presidential eligibility, a case where one can scream and say no fair.

    The Supreme Court is never going to take this, unless one state’s supreme (or perhaps even appeals) court rules different than Indiana. It would then almost certainly grant certiorari under rule 10.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_10

  100. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

    Good point and clarification. Thanks!

    Rickey: Not really. Somebody at Fogbow has pointed out that Mahili’s decision says that he was prepared to enter a default ORDER, not a default JUDGMENT.

  101. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 3, 2012 at 8:05 pm #

    G: Great analysis. I agree with how you layed it all out.

    Except for the bit about “Obama is not being elected”. I should have stressed the “certification” part more. Someone already corrected me.

  102. avatar
    gorefan February 3, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

    Scientist: Danny deVito in “My Cousin Vinny”

    Joe Pesci in “My Cousin Vinny”

  103. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    gorefan: Joe Pesci in “My Cousin Vinny”

    Yes, I stand corrected…