Main Menu

Swensson appeal filed in Georgia

The third appeal of Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s decision to keep Barack Obama on the Super Tuesday Primary Ballot was filed yesterday – this time by Carl Swensson through his Georgia attorney Mark Hatfield, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

Update: Mr. Powell has also filed a similar appeal through Mr. Hatfield.

Photo of Mark HatfieldHatfield (pictured right) had argued unsuccessfully before Judge Michael Malihi last month that Barack Obama was not eligible to run for President because Obama’s father was not a US citizen. The judge ruled against Swensson (and co-plaintiff Powell), citing an Indiana Appeals Court ruling in a similar case, that those born in the country are its natural born citizens. That ruling was accepted by Secretary of State Kemp.

Hatfield argues that Judge Malihi erred when he issued one ruling in the three cases before him challenging Obama’s eligibility, contending that in his case, no evidence was presented that Barack Obama was born in the United States and that Malihi should not considered evidence (State Department documents, a passport, birth certificates, and a school registration) for a US Birth of Barack Obama from the other cases in his case. (I have already shown that Hatfield did present evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii in his Exhibit 6.) Hatfield also criticizes Judge Malihi for not ruling on his “burden of proof” motion. Finally, and probably most importantly, Hatfield claims error based on the Judge’s reliance on the reasoning in the Indiana Appeals Court ruling in Ankeny v Governor of Indiana rather than the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, even though Ankeny was a presidential eligibility case and Minor was not.  Hatfield requests an emergency stay of Kemp’s decision and an expedited hearing.

To date, three such appeals have been filed: one on behalf of David Welden (attorney Van R. Irion), one on behalf of David Farrar, et al. (attorney Orly Taitz) and this one by Swensson. I have some doubts about the Farrar case based on the defective pro hac vice filings of Orly Taitz, who is clearly not competent to practice law. The filing deadline is tomorrow and we’ll just have to see if the Farrar appeal will be allowed to proceed without an attorney.

Swensson v Obama, Petition for Judicial Review, Georgia Ballot Access Challenge, 2-15-2012

, , , , , , , , ,

63 Responses to Swensson appeal filed in Georgia

  1. avatar
    Majority Will February 16, 2012 at 10:19 am #

    What birther bigots lack in basic reading comprehension skills and common sense they certainly make up for with mind boggling obstinacy and stupidity.

    Many of these knuckle dragging jingoists seem to think that repeating lie often enough will magically make it come true.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    It worked for Hitler.

    Majority Will: Many of these knuckle dragging jingoists seem to think that repeating lie often enough will magically make it come true.

  3. avatar
    Scientist February 16, 2012 at 10:30 am #

    IANAL, but aren’t these clowns appealing a decision by the Secretary of State? Don’t they have to sue him, not the President?

  4. avatar
    Majority Will February 16, 2012 at 10:36 am #

    Scientist:
    IANAL, but aren’t these clowns appealing a decision by the Secretary of State?Don’t they have to suehim, not the President?

    But Confederate Carl and Ass Hatfield are Republicans just like SOS Brian Kemp.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    Perhaps he is counting on Obama’s attorney not showing up again.

    Scientist: IANAL, but aren’t these clowns appealing a decision by the Secretary of State? Don’t they have to sue him, not the President?

  6. avatar
    Majority Will February 16, 2012 at 10:47 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Perhaps he is counting on Obama’s attorney not showing up again.

    They’ve been rehearsing their case in a Rooms To Go late at night when no one is around.

  7. avatar
    Scientist February 16, 2012 at 10:53 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Perhaps he is counting on Obama’s attorney not showing up again.

    There’s a good chance the State AG will send someone to defend the SOS’s decision. Or the case will be tossed on the grounds that they sued the wrong party.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    I have a portable empty chair so I can have Jablonski with me at all times.

    Majority Will: They’ve been rehearsing their case in a Rooms To Go late at night when no one is around.

  9. avatar
    y_p_w February 16, 2012 at 11:15 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I have a portable empty chair so I can have Jablonski with me at all times.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvLj72apGLI

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    Ordinarily I would have thought that Hatfield knows enough to sue the right party. The Welden appeal names Obama only as well. (Not worth looking at what Taitz did).

    I don’t think the SoS will respond, but I think Obama will.

    Scientist: There’s a good chance the State AG will send someone to defend the SOS’s decision. Or the case will be tossed on the grounds that they sued the wrong party.

  11. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 16, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    I was not going to mention the problem that Scientist pointed out until close of court business tomorrow. Doc, even if Obama’s counsel failed to respond by answer or motion, a default would not result in the relief requested because it is directed to the wrong person.

  12. avatar
    The Magic M February 16, 2012 at 11:30 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Ordinarily I would have thought that Hatfield knows enough to sue the right party.

    Who are these people anyway? I thought every birfer lawyer other than Orly would at least get the stuff right that even I, a non-lawyer (though a well-versed armchair lawyer ;)) from the other side of the globe, could.

  13. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 16, 2012 at 11:46 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy

    “It worked for Hitler.”

    I may be wrong, but didn’t the Nazis have a far tighter control on the press and radio, allowing them to deny the masses the free information they would have needed to debunk and resist the party message?

    Now, if the Repugnicans managed to shut down all “news” sources other than Fox, WND, etc., I’d join you in the gnashing of teeth. But stifling all other sources would be a far taller order than even Karl ‘Goebbels’ Rove and Roger ‘Eichmann’ Ailes could pull off.

    Lets hope.

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 11:53 am #

    What do you think about this:

    TITLE 9. CIVIL PRACTICE
    CHAPTER 11. CIVIL PRACTICE ACT
    ARTICLE 4. PARTIES

    O.C.G.A. 9-11-19 (2011)

    9-11-19. Joinder of persons needed for just adjudication

    (a) Persons to be joined if feasible. A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if:

    (1) In his absence complete relief cannot be afforded among those who are already parties; or

    (2) He claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may:

    (A) As a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; or

    (B) Leave any of the persons who are already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest.

    If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party
    . If he should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, he may be made a defendant or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. If the joined party objects to venue and his joinder would render the venue of the action improper, he shall be dismissed from the action.

    (b) Determination by court whenever joinder not feasible. If a person, as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section, cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include:

    (1) To what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to him or to those already parties;

    (2) The extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or by other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided;

    (3) Whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate;

    (4) Whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder; and

    (5) Whether and by whom prejudice might have been avoided or may, in the future, be avoided.

    (c) Pleading reasons for nonjoinder. A pleading asserting a claim for relief shall state the names, if known to the pleader, of any persons, as described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of this Code section, who are not joined and the reasons why they are not joined.

    (d) Exception of class actions. This Code section shall be subject to Code Section 9-11-23.

    Since Obama has an interest in the outcome, it would seem appropriate that he be included as a defendant. Could the court then join the Secretary of State?

    GeorgetownJD:
    I was not going to mention the problem that Scientist pointed out until close of court business tomorrow.Doc, even if Obama’s counsel failed to respond by answer or motion, a default would not result in the relief requested because it is directed to the wrong person.

  15. avatar
    bob February 16, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    Powell also filed a petition for review; looks like Swensson, and filed by Hatfield.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 12:11 pm #

    “The proper remedy for failure to join indispensable parties is not dismissal, but joinder․  Before granting a motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties, a court must allow a reasonable time for the absent parties to be joined.”

    Altama Delta Corp. v. Howell, 225 Ga.App. 78, 81(3), 483 S.E.2d 127 (1997).

    GeorgetownJD: Doc, even if Obama’s counsel failed to respond by answer or motion, a default would not result in the relief requested because it is directed to the wrong person.

  17. avatar
    JPotter February 16, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

    Majority Will: Many of these knuckle dragging jingoists seem to think that repeating lie often enough will magically make it come true.

    Certainly seems that way. The joy of America is freedom to hold any position you want, no matter how stupid, even if you have no case. And the frustration of knowing no one else is required to agree with you, particularly when you have no case.

    The crap part is, that you can attempt to waste the time and funds of others, so long as you’re willing to waste your own. And usually succeeding in doing so, as the other party is obligated to defend itself. That seems extremely unfair, even if all it takes is a motion to dismiss as stupid. That’s why I admire Jablonski’s response.

  18. avatar
    gorefan February 16, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Since Obama has an interest in the outcome, it would seem appropriate that he be included as a defendant. Could the court then join the Secretary of State?

    With such a short clock and the plaintiffs wanting an expedited scheduling, it seems strange that they would do anything that drags things out.

    Maybe the one thing they keep saying they want (a Supreme Court ruling) is the one thing they fear the most.

  19. avatar
    jayHG February 16, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    To me, these birther lawyers seem so DESPARATE. It’s as if they have actually talked themselves into………I don’t know……..something, and are scrambling to not have all this a complete failure. By reading the document, they’ve invested so much emotion in it.

    Maybe they thought I better win SOMETHING or my legal career is over!

  20. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 16, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

    What relief cannot be granted unless Obama is a party? The relief sought is that Obama’s name be stricken from the PPP ballot. Obama does not control the ballot and could not, even if mandated, change the agency decision made by a state official. Why is Obama an indispensable party?

    There is a reason why the case Terry v. Handel was captioned Terry v. Handel.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    Obama is already a party. Relief cannot be granted unless Brian Kemp is a party, and based on my untrained reading of the Georgia Appeals Court decision and the statute, it seems that Kemp might be joined as a defendant.

    GeorgetownJD: What relief cannot be granted unless Obama is a party?

  22. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 16, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    Keep in mind, Doc, that although this is brought in a trial level court it actually is an appeal. The record is closed; nothing can be added in the way of evidence.

    Obama is not a necessary party. There is no reason that he must be a defendant. The person who is indispensable was not made a party, in true birther buffoon tradition. Obama might desire to intervene if he feels he has an intetest to protect that will not be adequately protected by the AG. But that does not mean the appeal cannot proceed without him.

    The statute granting jurisdiction to this court is limited. The court has jurisdiction to review the SoS’s decision and determine whether that agency’s decision is supported by the factual record and law. The record contains the evidence that established the facts that Mr. Kemp relied upon. All that Obama might contribute would be a legal argument that the SoS was not empowered by Georgia law to make the decision in the first place, so that the court would be asked to uphold the right to be on the ballot but upon different grounds.

  23. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 16, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

    My point is that Obama should never have been named as a party. He has excellent grounds for dismissal.

  24. avatar
    Scientist February 16, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: My point is that Obama should never have been named as a party. He has excellent grounds for dismissal.

    I agree, Obama does not control the ballot, so what could the court order him to do? However, I think that the birfoons suing the wrong party is not legal incompetence, but deliberate. Orly may not be, but the others are probably at least dimly aware that they have 0 chance of winning. For them, it is simply about ego and politics. Me vs Obama is a bigger ego boost than Me v. Kemp and they see better politics in taking on a Democratic President than a Republican SoS.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

    I get your point. We’ll just have to see what the court says.

    GeorgetownJD: My point is that Obama should never have been named as a party. He has excellent grounds for dismissal.

  26. avatar
    G February 16, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    That confirms what I thought. Thanks.

    GeorgetownJD: Keep in mind, Doc, that although this is brought in a trial level court it actually is an appeal. The record is closed; nothing can be added in the way of evidence. Obama is not a necessary party. There is no reason that he must be a defendant. The person who is indispensable was not made a party, in true birther buffoon tradition. Obama might desire to intervene if he feels he has an intetest to protect that will not be adequately protected by the AG. But that does not mean the appeal cannot proceed without him.The statute granting jurisdiction to this court is limited. The court has jurisdiction to review the SoS’s decision and determine whether that agency’s decision is supported by the factual record and law. The record contains the evidence that established the facts that Mr. Kemp relied upon. All that Obama might contribute would be a legal argument that the SoS was not empowered by Georgia law to make the decision in the first place, so that the court would be asked to uphold the right to be on the ballot but upon different grounds.

  27. avatar
    G February 16, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    I suspect the same.

    For the Birthers & their Birther Lawyers, they are driven by a strong urge to achieve a “show us your papers, boy!” moment.

    And yes, they also prefer the optics and politics of going against Obama or the Democratic Party and *not* having to battle against the GOP SoS.

    Scientist: I agree, Obama does not control the ballot, so what could the court order him to do? However, I think that the birfoons suing the wrong party is not legal incompetence, but deliberate. Orly may not be, but the others are probably at least dimly aware that they have 0 chance of winning. For them, it is simply about ego and politics. Me vs Obama is a bigger ego boost than Me v. Kemp and they see better politics in taking on a Democratic President than a Republican SoS.

    That is how I see it as well.

    GeorgetownJD: My point is that Obama should never have been named as a party. He has excellent grounds for dismissal.

  28. avatar
    donna February 16, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    GA – Farrar v Obama – Pro Hac Vice denied

    Farrar v Obama – ORDER Denying Taitz’s Motion for pro hac vice

    The majority of the required information set forth above was not included in the Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Ms. Taitz as required by Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.4(E)(1). Moreover, the Motion included no Verification affirming that the applicant read the application, was knowledgeable as to its contents, and that said contents were true. The Motion also failed to demonstrate, through proof of service, that it would be served upon the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia in accordance with Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.4(D). Lastly. the Motion did not include the name, Georgia Bar license number, or signature of an
    attorney licensed to practice in the State of Georgia who will also be acting as counsel of record in this litigation.

    Read More…

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/

  29. avatar
    sunkawakan February 16, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

    Ummm. You’ve got a photo of Kemp – the SOS – but your text indicates that it’s Hatfield.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 16, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    Thank you very much for noting this error, now corrected.

    sunkawakan: Ummm. You’ve got a photo of Kemp – the SOS – but your text indicates that it’s Hatfield.

  31. avatar
    Sicktoad February 17, 2012 at 12:08 am #

    Interesting Questions About Obama
    June 24, 2011

    Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2011 7:22:50 PM by econjack

    This came from a union guy in Chicago who didn’t vote for Obama. Very, very interesting perspective that I never thought of in this light.

    It will be interesting to see what they put in his “Presidential Library” or “Presidential Mosque” about his early years when he is out of office.

    In a country where we take notice of many, many facets of our public figures’ lives, doesn’t seem odd that there’s so little we know about our current president, Barack Obama. For example, we know that Andrew Jackson’s wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery; Abe Lincoln never went to school; Jack Kennedy wore a back brace; Harry Truman played the piano.

    As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our newsmakers, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.

    We are all aware of the lack of uncontestable birth records for Obama; that document managing has been spectacularly successful. There are however, several additional oddities in Obama’s history that appear to be as well managed as the birthing issue.

    It’s interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up. The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign, certainly would in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself. We all know about JFK’s magnetism, that McCain was no monk and quite a few Details about Palin’s courtship and even her athletic prowess Joe Biden’s aneurysms are no secret; look at Cheney and Clinton, we all know about their heart problems.. Certainly Wild Bill Clinton’s exploits before and during his White House years, were well known.

    That’s why it’s so odd that not one lady has stepped up and said, “He was soooo shy…” or “What a great dancer…”

    It’s virtually impossible to know anything about this fellow.

    Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.

    Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.

    When did he meet Michele, and how? Are there photos there? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library, etc. What has he released? And who in hell voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010? Doesn’t this make you wonder?

    Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from President Obama’s past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc??

    Not one person has ever come forward from his past. It certainly is very, very strange…

    This should be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man. Have you seen a movie named “The Manchurian Candidate”

    As insignificant as each of us might be, someone with whom we went to school will remember our name or face; someone will remember we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.

    George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia — the class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him..

    He is such a great orator; why doesn’t anyone in Obama’s college class remember him? Why won’t he allow Columbia to release his records?

    Nobody remembers Obama at Columbia University ….

    Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there… but none remembered him.

    Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia , ever.”

    Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, Class of ’83 Political Science, and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, ‘the macha’ who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him.”

    Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia ,provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia .

    Some other interesting questions..

    Why was Obama’s law license inactivated in 2002?

    Why was Michelle’s law license inactivated by court order?

    It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 alias.

    The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived.

    No wonder all his records are sealed…

    Please continue sending this out to everyone. Somewhere, someone had to know him in school…before he “reorganized” Chicago & burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Maybe next time we might think about asking these questions before we VOTE

  32. avatar
    G February 17, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    What an entire crock of horsesh*t!

    To claim that “nobody knows anything about Obama’s past” is beyond stupid and to believe such reveals one as an utter ODS suffering idiot.

    During the entire run up to the 2008 election, endless accounts of Obama’s life history were run all over TV. The man had 2 best-selling autobiographies by that time too – one of which was a best seller since the mid 1990’s.

    Any child with the internet can do a quick google search to find pictures from his youth and many accounts of people who grew up with him and knew him when he was young. You can also find clips of articles he wrote in college and articles written about him during that time too – after all, he was the first black student to be awarded the prestigious title of President of the Harvard Law review.

    Fact Check debunked the “no one knew Obama at Columbia” myth a long time ago:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/obama-at-columbia-university/

    Also, here’s a whole collection of people who knew Obama during all periods of his life:

    http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/

    There. That pretty much trashes your entire ball of lies. Your moniker betrays you. You certainly are one sick toad. That’s for sure.

    Sicktoad: Please continue sending this out to everyone. Somewhere, someone had to know him in school…before he “reorganized” Chicago & burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Maybe next time we might think about asking these questions before we VOTE

  33. avatar
    gorefan February 17, 2012 at 12:39 am #

    Sicktoad:
    Interesting Questions About Obama
    June 24, 2011

    Wow, some of these are out right lies, for example he is in every school year book form 1971 to 1979. A good friend of Alan Root says that Root lied about no one knowing the President at Columbia. Many of the President’s friends from school have been interviewed.

    It is really sad that anyone would accpet this nonsense. Frankly, I find it incredible un-American.

  34. avatar
    Arthur February 17, 2012 at 12:45 am #

    G: There. That pretty much trashes your entire ball of lies.

    Birtherism is a weed that needs constant eradication; thanks for pulling up this ugly bit of crabgrass by the roots.

  35. avatar
    G February 17, 2012 at 1:01 am #

    Agreed. This kind of garbage goes way beyond typical Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    gorefan: It is really sad that anyone would accpet this nonsense. Frankly, I find it incredible un-American.

    Arthur: Birtherism is a weed that needs constant eradication; thanks for pulling up this ugly bit of crabgrass by the roots.

  36. avatar
    Keith February 17, 2012 at 2:04 am #

    gorefan: It is really sad that anyone would accpet this nonsense. Frankly, I find it incredible un-American.

    I don’t think for a moment that the folks originating these ‘memes’ believe them at all. They just want them out there for others to copy and paste in order to keep the FUD bubbling over.

  37. avatar
    John Reilly February 17, 2012 at 2:10 am #

    As Karl Rove observed, all of Mr. Sicktoad’s lies are a trap by President Obama. If you wanted to script a way to help President Obama get re-elected, you cannot do better than to hire Dr. Taitz and spread all of Mr. Sicktoad’s lies.

  38. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 17, 2012 at 4:02 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Ordinarily I would have thought that Hatfield knows enough to sue the right party. The Welden appeal names Obama only as well. (Not worth looking at what Taitz did).

    I don’t think the SoS will respond, but I think Obama will.

    I don’t believe that Obama has been served.

    Given that the attorneys are too stupid to sue the correct party, I doubt that they have figured out that this petition is a new action requiring new service. In any case, as the summons issued gives Obama 30 days after service to respond, I have a feeling that the the Georgia primary will have long since passed by the time we find out whether or not Obama plans to appear.

  39. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 17, 2012 at 4:03 am #

    Note, for clarification: by “appear” I meant in the legal sense, of “appear through counsel.”

  40. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 17, 2012 at 4:14 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Obama is already a party. Relief cannot be granted unless Brian Kemp is a party, and based on my untrained reading of the Georgia Appeals Court decision and the statute, it seems that Kemp might be joined as a defendant.

    But Obama is not a proper party — so the appropriate remedy is dismissal.

  41. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 17, 2012 at 4:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: “The proper remedy for failure to join indispensable parties is not dismissal, but joinder․  Before granting a motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties, a court must allow a reasonable time for the absent parties to be joined.”

    Altama Delta Corp. v. Howell, 225 Ga.App. 78, 81(3), 483 S.E.2d 127 (1997).

    The case you are citing was a civil action founded on contract. Plaintiffs sued defendants seeking money.

    The proper action in this case is a special statutory petition, which is a form of extraordinary relief like a petition for writ of mandamus.

    So you are looking at Chapter 11, “Civil Practice Act” when you should be looking at Chapter 6 “Extraordinary Writs”. Nothing about joinder there.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 7:59 am #

    Thanks for the explanations.

    Expelliarmus: The proper action in this case is a special statutory petition, which is a form of extraordinary relief like a petition for writ of mandamus.

  43. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 17, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    Sicktoad February 17, 2012 at 12:08 am (Quote) #
    Interesting Questions About Obama

    Thank you, Sir or Madam, for your contribution to the effort to re-elect President Obama. Your comments, now public, allow us to make the case that those who oppose him are
    either easily-duped, mean-spirited conspiracy theorists or racist nutbags.

    Thanks again for assisting us in the cause of Freedom.

  44. avatar
    Shmivel February 17, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    While there is no shortage of criticism toward birthers, the original case and judgment by Judge Michael Malihi, was so riddled with errors and lacked even the most basic reliance on facts, that any lawyer who did not appeal the decision would be open for well deserved criticism himself. Regardless of what one’s opinions are on the subject of POTUS qualifications, anyone who has spent a reasonable time in a court of law would have to admit that Malihi’s handling of this case is atrocious, so much so, that I am left wondering if he did so intentionally, so as to leave a gaping door open for an appeal to a higher court. Its the only explanation I can imagine for an experienced judge to err in such a spectacular fashion.

  45. avatar
    Obsolete February 17, 2012 at 12:06 pm #

    Keep wishing and whistling past the graveyard of failed birther lawsuits, Shmivel.

  46. avatar
    Joe Acerbic February 17, 2012 at 12:37 pm #

    Shmivel:
    if he did so intentionally, so as to leave a gaping door open for an appeal to a higher court.Its the only explanation I can imagine

    Indeed that is one of the standard “explanations” birfoons are imagining in all the 100 lost cases, anything to deny the reality that they are losing because they are wrong. Being idiots is not the reason; it only makes them lose in an idiotic manner.

  47. avatar
    Arthur February 17, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

    Shmivel: Regardless of what one’s opinions are on the subject of POTUS qualifications, anyone who has spent a reasonable time in a court of law would have to admit that Malihi’s handling of this case is atrocious, so much so, that I am left wondering if he did so intentionally, so as to leave a gaping door open for an appeal to a higher court. Its the only explanation I can imagine for an experienced judge to err in such a spectacular fashion.

    Way to stick it to these Obots, Shmivel! Keep that indignant eloquence coming. These kook-aid drinkers don’t know how to handle someone with a brain. Your words will land like firery wasps upon their naive assumptions, biting and stinging them into submission!!

  48. avatar
    JoZeppy February 17, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

    Shmivel: While there is no shortage of criticism toward birthers, the original case and judgment by Judge Michael Malihi, was so riddled with errors and lacked even the most basic reliance on facts, that any lawyer who did not appeal the decision would be open for well deserved criticism himself.

    And would you care to point out some of those errors? While I remain critical of him not controlling the circus that came to town, I thought he delivered a rather fine recommendation, based on the fact of consequence in this whole matter…that President Obama was born in Hawaii (which the birthers introduced to the record). And the criticism should go to the lawyers that are arguing junk law to a judge, and further more any lawyer that would appeal the much deserved smack down they get for putting that garbage before a judge.

    Shmivel: Regardless of what one’s opinions are on the subject of POTUS qualifications, anyone who has spent a reasonable time in a court of law would have to admit that Malihi’s handling of this case is atrocious

    I have to agree with you on that part. The fact they he didn’t dismiss Orly’s case, when her clients weren’t Georgia citizens, and then improperly adds parties was poor form. And again, that he let his courtroom become a circus all falls on his shoulders. Any judge that lets a freakshow run free in his courtroom deserves criticism.

    Shmivel: so much so, that I am left wondering if he did so intentionally, so as to leave a gaping door open for an appeal to a higher court. Its the only explanation I can imagine for an experienced judge to err in such a spectacular fashion.

    And now you let the wishful thinking set in. 1) No judge ever likes to be overruled. 2) There is no gaping door for an appeal to a higher court. This is nothing more than birther pipe dreams. 3) While it is my opinion he erred in giving the birthers too much rope, that is not reversible error (since no harm resulted). For all your whining, you have not pointed to a single instance where anything the did, or wrote, would provide a basis for reversal.

  49. avatar
    Whatever4 February 17, 2012 at 12:54 pm #

    Sicktoad:
    Interesting Questions About Obama
    June 24, 2011

    Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2011 7:22:50 PM by econjack

    In a country where we take notice of many, many facets of our public figures’ lives, doesn’t seem odd that there’s so little we know about our current president, Barack Obama. For example, we know that Andrew Jackson’s wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery; Abe Lincoln never went to school; Jack Kennedy wore a back brace; Harry Truman played the piano. Comparing single datapoints like these to the mass of info you then claim is missing for Obama is ridiculous.

    As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our newsmakers, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president. Only if you have been blind and deaf for the past 4 years.

    We are all aware of the lack of uncontestable birth records for Obama; that document managing has been spectacularly successful. There are however, several additional oddities in Obama’s history that appear to be as well managed as the birthing issue.

    It’s interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up. The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign, certainly would in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself. We all know about JFK’s magnetism, that McCain was no monk and quite a few Details about Palin’s courtship and even her athletic prowess Joe Biden’s aneurysms are no secret; look at Cheney and Clinton, we all know about their heart problems.. Certainly Wild Bill Clinton’s exploits before and during his White House years, were well known.

    That’s why it’s so odd that not one lady has stepped up and said, “He was soooo shy…” or “What a great dancer…” Look what happened when Clinton’s and Cain’s Women started coming out of the woodwork — they were excoriated by the media, supporters, and the opposition. No sane woman would put herself through that.

    It’s virtually impossible to know anything about this fellow.

    Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen. Best man — his half-brother, Malik Obama. Groomsman — his brother-in-law Craig robinson. Now tell me who was in Nixon’s wedding party.

    Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him. Here’s footage of his high school graduation, interviews with neighbors, classmates teachers from Punahou. http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/friends/#Hawaii 2 Here’s classmates, teachers, and roommates from Oxy and Columbia. http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/friends-2/#Oxy PLENTY of people have been bragging.

    When did he meet Michele, and how? Are there photos there? He met Michelle at his summer internship from Harvard Law School, at the law firm of Sidley Austin. Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library, etc. <He doesn't HAVE a library yet. What has he released? A huge bunch of stuff. Start with our orientation video here: http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/ And who in hell voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010? The President and First Lady almost always top the Most Popular/Most Admired polls. Doesn’t this make you wonder? No, it makes me ANGRY. Because no other president had to endure these questions in spite of reams of evidence.

    Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from President Obama’s past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc?? Nope, because many have.

    George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia — the class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him. Because George was class of 1982, Obama was 1983. Obama arrived in NY as a transfer student in the Fall of 1981. They only overlapped one year. As a transfer, Obama would have spent that year taking the core requirements he needed — classes that George took in the first 2 years. As a transfer, Obama lived off campus and mixed with a different social set than the students who had been there for 3 years already. Plus Obama played basketball for his major leisure time activity — George didn’t.

    He is such a great orator; why doesn’t anyone in Obama’s college class remember him? Why won’t he allow Columbia to release his records? No president has released their college records while running or in office. Plus people at Columbia DO remember him. http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/friends-2/#Columbia

    Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia , ever.” In 2008, Root was running for VP on the Libertarian ticket. Root wasn’t part of Obama’s social circle.

    Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia ,provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia . Transfer students generally don’t get involved in Campus Life.

    Some other interesting questions.. You mean stupid rumors.

    Why was Obama’s law license inactivated in 2002? He had just been elected to the State Senate, was teaching at UCLS, was a consultant at the law firm he’s been working at, served on several non-profit boards, and didn’t foresee using his law license. He had already retired from representing clients. Inactivating ones license means you don’t have to pay bar dues or carry legal malpractice insurance, or keep up-to-date via classes. Many many lawyers do this.

    Why was Michelle’s law license inactivated by court order? Because that’s how it worked when she decided to become inactive. Same reason many lawyers become inactive — they don’t represent clients or appear in court. It cost quite a bit of money to keep an unnecessary license active.

    It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 alias. The US Census doesn’t give out names or SSNs. The SSN claims comes from a database printout that hasn’t been cleaned up and is full of errors — the company that owns the database says so.

    The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived. Not a big deal, as the SSA confirms.

    No wonder all his records are sealed… They are as sealed as anyone’s, and the same way. Privacy laws.

    Please continue sending this out to everyone. Please don’t. Somewhere, someone had to know him in school…before he “reorganized” Chicago & burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Read, there’s plenty of answers to your questions at the links I’ve provided. Maybe next time we might think about asking these questions before we VOTE. We did. While you are at it, please tell us the answers to all these questions about any of our former presidents. You’ll find there’s more about Obama out there than there is about any other president.

  50. avatar
    justlw February 17, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    Shame on Usurper Nobama for only writing the two memoirs. What is he hiding? Pass the fiery wasps! Forward this to everyone!

  51. avatar
    Rickey February 17, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Thomas Brown:

    I may be wrong, but didn’t the Nazis have a far tighter control on the press and radio, allowing them to deny the masses the free information they would have needed to debunk and resist the party message?

    As it happens, I’m in the middle of reading William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” Within 6 months of Hitler becoming Chancellor of Germany, the Nazis had outlawed all other political parties and shut down all of the labor unions. People who openly opposed Hitler were assaulted by stormtroopers and jailed (if not murdered). And of course Joseph Goebbels developed a well-oiled propaganda machine. Befpre long no one dared to criticize Hitler, at least not in public.

  52. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 17, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    Rickey: …outlawed all other political parties and shut down all of the labor unions.

    How to pull that off here is what keeps Karl Rove up nights.

  53. avatar
    Scientist February 17, 2012 at 2:44 pm #

    Sicktoad: It’s interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up.

    Yes, it’s interesting. Because so-called conservatives were all over Bill Clinton for his “bimbo explosions”. They supposedly believe in abstinence before marriage and fideliity after. So if they get a President who might have actually practiced that, suddenly that is bad.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    Hatfield has written the court, suggesting that the two Plaintiffs he represents (Powell and Swensson) have their appeals consolidated, but that the cases of Welden and Farrar remain separate, but under no circumstances does he want to be entangled with Crazy Orly [my words] in the Farrar case.

  55. avatar
    G February 17, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

    LOL! Thanks for the tip on that. His insistence on keeping out the Taitz taint of Farrar’s case makes perfect sense.

    I’m actually a bit surprised about requesting Van Irion’s Weldon case be kept separate as well. Isn’t Hatfield providing PHV for Van Irion on this appeal? There is very little difference or daylight between that case and Hatfield’s…

    Poor deluded Farrar… he’s SOL…

    Dr. Conspiracy: Hatfield has written the court, suggesting that the two Plaintiffs he represents (Powell and Swensson) have their appeals consolidated, but that the cases of Welden and Farrar remain separate, but under no circumstances does he want to be entangled with Crazy Orly [my words] in the Farrar case.

  56. avatar
    RuhRoh February 17, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    G: LOL! Thanks for the tip on that. His insistence on keeping out the Taitz taint of Farrar’s case makes perfect sense. I’m actually a bit surprised about requesting Van Irion’s Weldon case be kept separate as well. Isn’t Hatfield providing PHV for Van Irion on this appeal? There is very little difference or daylight between that case and Hatfield’s…Poor deluded Farrar… he’s SOL…

    I may be wrong, but I think that Hatfield sees his cases as different from Van Irion’s in terms of who did and did not introduce the BC?

    I thought they both had, but that Hatfield then later wrote to the SOS as though he had not entered/stipulated to the integrity of the BC.

    Attempting to keep all of their BS straight gives me a headache.

  57. avatar
    G February 17, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    That may be the difference… but then again, I thought that stuff Hatfield had submitted in his written materials before the courts also pretty much confirmed Obama’s HI birth….

    Trying to keep their BS straight gives me a headache too…

    RuhRoh: I may be wrong, but I think that Hatfield sees his cases as different from Van Irion’s in terms of who did and did not introduce the BC?I thought they both had, but that Hatfield then later wrote to the SOS as though he had not entered/stipulated to the integrity of the BC. Attempting to keep all of their BS straight gives me a headache.

  58. avatar
    RuhRoh February 17, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    G: Thanks for pointing that out. That may be the difference… but then again, I thought that stuff Hatfield had submitted in his written materials before the courts also pretty much confirmed Obama’s HI birth….Trying to keep their BS straight gives me a headache too…

    Exactly! That’s why I’m also confused. Hatfield did enter it to the best of my recollection but after the hearing he behaved as though he had done no such thing.

    The only other differences between the two cases are that Van Irion only entered a few pages of President Obama’s Dreams Of My Father (Hatfield entered the entire thing) and one page of Allen’s FOIA response while Hatfield entered the whole thing.

    Perhaps Hatfield feels he would be limited in some way if the scant pages that Van Irion entered were the only ones considered? Birthers seem to always think “more” is “better” when it is often simply “more”.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

    It’s not clear to me whether this was his strategy from the outset, bit since Judge Malihi stated that Obama was born in the United States, and Hatfield believes (falsely it turns out) that he submitted no evidence of this, that he has grounds to overturn the decision.

    The problem in my mind with such a theory is that Secretary of State Kemp must either say Obama is on the Ballot or he is not. He can’t say that in one case he is and in the other case he is not. There cannot be one winner and two losers with Obama on 2/3 of the ballots. Ya know?

    I guess this is why he doesn’t want the cases joined — so one judge can rule one way and another the other.

    Unfortunately for Hatfield, all the rulings will be against his theory.

    RuhRoh: I may be wrong, but I think that Hatfield sees his cases as different from Van Irion’s in terms of who did and did not introduce the BC?

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 17, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    Well you don’t have to recall; you need only took at the transcript, Page 3.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854466/Georgia-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfb

    No birth certificate.

    RuhRoh: Exactly! That’s why I’m also confused. Hatfield did enter it to the best of my recollection but after the hearing he behaved as though he had done no such thing.

  61. avatar
    RuhRoh February 17, 2012 at 8:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well you don’t have to recall; you need only took at the transcript, Page 3.http://www.scribd.com/doc/79854466/Georgia-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Certified-Transcript-1-26-12-Hearing-tfbNo birth certificate.

    Thanks! 🙂

  62. avatar
    RuhRoh February 17, 2012 at 9:04 pm #

    Sorry to make you do more work, Dr. C., but is there anything in whatever Hatfield submitted in his “Findings of Fact” and whatnot that was submitted a few days after the hearing that would either expressly enter the BC or rely on an assumption of Obama’s US birthplace?

    I’m not a full-time Anti-Birther. 🙁 I’m not as fully up to speed on all the ins and outs and flights of fancy as are the rest of you.

  63. avatar
    G February 17, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    Or even in his submissions *prior* to the actual hearing as well… every bit of info, from submission, to hearing, to findings is part of the record before the judge.

    I thought for sure there was something in those writings… but again, I could be getting my cases confused…

    RuhRoh: Sorry to make you do more work, Dr. C., but is there anything in whatever Hatfield submitted in his “Findings of Fact” and whatnot that was submitted a few days after the hearing that would either expressly enter the BC or rely on an assumption of Obama’s US birthplace?I’m not a full-time Anti-Birther. I’m not as fully up to speed on all the ins and outs and flights of fancy as are the rest of you.