Georgia Obama Ballot Challenge Plaintiff: Default Judgement Against Obama Coming
ObamaBallotChallenge.com reports on a statement given by one of the ballot challenge Plaintiffs, Carl Swensson:
To all my friends in battle,
The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there. We argued that all the evidence needed to be entered in to record so the Judge allowed for a speedy hearing where all evidence was entered into the court record. What that means is this… Any appeal, if one is even possible, would be based on the evidence provided by the lawyers in each case. Both Van Irion and My lawyer, Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in those two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with “Birther” Orly Taitz. As expected, she was an embarrassment.
Now we’re merely awaiting the publishing of this Judge’s ruling which, as previously stated, will be a Default Judgment.
In other words…we won. Now it’s time for the rest of the States to take my lead and duplicate this effort.
Carl
CdrKerchner’s blog reports that Obama, the Defendant, had no representation in the Courtroom today, and also confirms from other witness that the available attorneys were in the Judge’s chambers at about 9am ET regarding the alleged default judgement.
TheNationalPatriot has more play-by-play of what transpired in the Courtroom today.
At this point, we have allegations that a default judgement is set to be rendered, even though I have also read that both sides are being asked to submit final paperwork by the time Judge Malihi issues his recommendation to SoS Kemp. My understanding is also that such a final recommendation would occur by early February (these dates still need to be confirmed).
So far, things are going exactly according to statute. Frankly, it was very stupid for Obama not to have had at least an intern show up to present something for the record. Why? Because when — not if — this thing escalates, the only things that the State Appellate and/or Superior Courts can consider when reviewing the cases are what’s been entered into the record.
Those of you who seethe with disgust and even hatred towards those of us who question should take note: the Plaintiffs played their hand very well with Judge Malihi. They specifically asked to have a few hours to enter their evidence into the record instead of simply allowing for a summary judgement. Nothing outside of what was presented today can be used to consider for or against Obama, going forward, in this case.
Now, some might say that it’s completely unrealistic to believe that SoS Kemp would actually strike Obama’s name from Georgia’s ballot, and that’s their prerogative. Remember, though, that States have complete and total authority, per the Constitution, to regulate elections within their respective jurisdictions as they see fit, as long as they themselves don’t violate the Constitution. In other words, it would be fantastic to see a suit involving another Court against the State for regulating their elections; I don’t think it would work very well, else all States would subsequently not be able to regulate their own elections, and, ironically, that would be unconstitutional.
-Phil
phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com
11 responses to Georgia Obama Ballot Challenge Plaintiff: Default Judgement Against Obama Coming
Why show up and put on evidence when the plaintiffs are offering the evidence that the Obama attorneys would have offered?
By introducing the COLB and agreeing to its authenticity, Hatfield and Irion made Jablonski’s case. Obama’s burden is show he is eligible. Being born in Hawaii makes him eligible. Hatfield and Irion just helped Obama by meeting his burden for him.
When the offense team is running toward the wrong end zone, would you stop them?
we have allegations that a default judgement is set to be rendered
Judge Malihi can’t enter a judgment, let alone a default judgement. The judge will make a recommendation to the Georgia Secretary of State, nothing more.
Plaintiffs played their hand very well with Judge Malihi.
O RLY? As GeorgetownJD noted, they introduced into evidence (or allowed to be introduced) a copy of President Obama’s COLB. In soccer terms, that’s called an “autogoal.”
Nothing outside of what was presented today can be used to consider for or against Obama, going forward, in this case.
Are you sure about that, “counselor”?
Remember, though, that States have complete and total authority, per the Constitution, to regulate elections within their respective jurisdictions as they see fit, as long as they themselves don’t violate the Constitution.
Employing an unconstitutional definition of natural-born citizen would certainly violate the U.S. Constitution.
The political parties have First Amendment associational rights that could also be asserted.
GeorgetownJD:
You’re talking past what Irion’s case was all about.
Irion already admits that Obama was born in Hawaii.
bob,
First of all, judges render judgments, and such judgments must subsequently be enforced. The only exception I know to this is when a jury’s involved, in which case the jury renders a verdict, which also must subsequently be enforced.
I haven’t looked over the news today, but my understanding is that the “summary judgment” allegation is just that — it hasn’t been officially reported one way or the other, and apparently it won’t be until on/about February 5 (as I’ve already stated on my blog).
Second, with respect to the alleged birth certificate, you already know how much I’ve gone on, ad nauseum, about how great it would be to get any sort of documentation such as that piece of paper on the record. Further, at this point, my understanding is that it’s only Dr. Taitz who still has an issue with the birth certificate; attorneys such as Mr. Irion really aren’t concerned with that detail, except with respect to Obama’s Kenyan daddy.
Third, yes, I am absolutely positive that “[n]othing outside of what was presented today can be used to consider for or against Obama, going forward, in this case.” As I’ve already explained here (which you apparently didn’t read, nor did many folks over at Fogbow, as I could see from some of the commentary), the Georgia statute that governs this process speaks to this issue accordingly:
Fourth, I find it funny that you would suggest that there is such a thing as an unconstitutional definition of natural-born citizen, when even local radio station WSB interviewed a legal expert (can’t remember names) for airplay this morning who specifically stated that the Constitution doesn’t actually define who a natural-born citizen is. Therefore, it’s difficult to argue, from your perspective, how the OSA Court could find an unconstitutional definition of natural-born citizen when the Constitution, per se, doesn’t actually define natural born citizen.
Fifth, and as Judge Malihi has already addressed, while political parties most certainly do have First Amendment rights regarding associations, political parties are not constitutionally allowed to dictate the process by which elections can be regulated. That’s a State right, not a private right.
bob, you’re making lots of irrational statements. Are you, as they say, “going off the rails” here??
1. “Judgment” and “default judgment” are legal terms. An administrative law judge does not have the authority to enter any sort judgment (as the term is used, you know, by judges and lawyers). Legally, ALJ Malihi can only make a recommendation to the Secretary of State.
2. Regardless of what you would like, multiple sources reported a copy of President Obama’s COLB was entered into evidence at yesterday’s hearing. I expect the COLB to factor into the ALJ’s recommendation.
3. Where in the statute cited does it say the Secretary of State is confined to the evidence that the parties brought forth at the administrative hearing? (And there methods of introducing certain kinds of outside-the-record evidence in judicial proceedings; perhaps a learned attorney like Irion, Hatfied, or Taitz can explain these to you.)
4. You may get your legal advice from TV talking heads; I don’t. Regardless, ALJ Malihi is not going to recommend that President Obama be removed from the ballot because he lacks two citizen parents.
5. Malihi is an ALJ; he certainly is not the final say on the issue. And SCOTUS has been very clear on the associational rights of the political parties that are granted by the U.S. Constitution.
bob,
Well, now — that was a quick turn-around.
Apparently you’ve been able to go from (to use my own words), “This is an illegitimate process” to “This process actually entails the following things” in a matter of 30 minutes.
Tell whomever you’re getting your talking points from that they’re doing a great job
They were right to put their evidence on the record, even if the defense uses it to its advantage. Assuming the worst case scenario for Obama just for argument purposes, he is taken off the ballot, that decision is able to be appealed. Assuming that plaintiffs lose, they can appeal. Each of the plaintiffs want their own argument addressed and this is the only way to assure that their evidence is on the record for the appeal.
Apparently you’ve been able to go from (to use my own words), “This is an illegitimate process” to “This process actually entails the following things” in a matter of 30 minutes.
Considering I said neither of things, your reading comprehension skills continue to be incredible.
bob,
Well, now, there you go again being irrational. I never said that you said those things. In fact, I specifically disclaimed the actual words I used by saying a parenthetical, to wit: “(to use my own words)” which you’ve even quoted per your response back to me.
Perhaps it’s not just me whom you should be judging with respect to “reading comprehension skills continue to be incredible?”
You are a one-person version of the children’s game, Telephone.
Hey, Phil, been a while.
I’m with you that Obama’s attorney handled this badly, but the Administrative Court’s ruling is in, and it’s the most comprehensive judicial refutation yet of the of eligibility-deniers.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_KEK8-LWmzhNWQ4MmI2ZGUtZDMwYi00ZGU4LTkxZTUtZjNkNjNhOGY2YWQ4&hl=en_US&pli=1