Best Birther Lunacy Evar

[Jerome]

Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing - Nation - TheState.com

ATLANTA — A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president.

The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

Looks like voters do have standing.

[LadyShea]

Looks like voters do have standing.

Um, how did you draw that conclusion? Has the standing issue been ruled on? This was a denial of the motion to quash the subpoena..is this a preliminary hearing, or what exactly?

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Looks like voters do have standing.

Your night classes at the Orly Taitz School of Law are working wonders, Jerry.

Like her, you too have learned how to draw sweeping and unfounded legal conclusions from purely administrative actions.

Your own post shows one aspect of what's wrong with the standing issue and you won't even see it. Here's a hint: if all voters do have standing, that does what to a claim of particularized injury that could be redressed through the courts?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, how did you draw that conclusion? Has the standing issue been ruled on? This was a denial of the motion to quash the subpoena..is this a preliminary hearing, or what exactly?

21-2-5 :: 21-2 :: Title 21 — Elections :: 2006 Georgia Code :: Georgia Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

21-2-5. (a) Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought. (b) The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate. Within two weeks after the deadline for qualifying, any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified to seek and hold the public office for which he or she is offering. Upon his or her own motion or upon a challenge being filed, the Secretary of State shall notify the candidate in writing that his or her qualifications are being challenged and the reasons therefor and shall advise the candidate that he or she is requesting a hearing on the matter before an administrative law judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article 2 of Chapter 13 of Title 50 and shall inform the candidate of the date, time, and place of the hearing when such information becomes available. The administrative law judge shall report his or her findings to the Secretary of State. (c) The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified to seek and hold the public office for which such candidate is offering. If the Secretary of State determines that the candidate is not qualified, the Secretary of State shall withhold the name of the candidate from the ballot or strike such candidate´s name from the ballot if the ballots have been printed. If there is insufficient time to strike the candidate´s name or reprint the ballots, a prominent notice shall be placed at each affected polling place advising voters of the disqualification of the candidate and all votes cast for such candidate shall be void and shall not be counted. (d) In the event that a candidate pays his or her qualifying fee with a check that is subsequently returned for insufficient funds, the Secretary of State shall automatically find that such candidate has not met the qualifications for holding the office being sought, unless the bank, credit union, or other financial institution returning the check certifies in writing by an officer´s or director´s oath that the bank, credit union, or financial institution erred in returning the check. (e) The elector filing the challenge or the candidate challenged shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by filing a petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County within ten days after the entry of the final decision by the Secretary of State. The filing of the petition shall not itself stay the decision of the Secretary of State; however, the reviewing court may order a stay upon appropriate terms for good cause shown. As soon as possible after service of the petition, the Secretary of State shall transmit the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the proceedings under review to the reviewing court. The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record. The court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions of the Secretary of State are: (1) In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the Secretary of State; (3) Made upon unlawful procedures; (4) Affected by other error of law; (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. An aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment of the superior court by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as provided by law.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Ga. judge orders president to appear at hearing - Nation - TheState.com

Looks like voters do have standing.

This looks like a legal conclusion! Work through the list. Hint: what's the difference between Article III and not Article III?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

Here's a hint: if all voters do have standing, that does what to a claim of particularized injury that could be redressed through the courts?

These are state administrative proceedings rather than federal district court cases. Standing as a jurisdictional requirement derives from Art. III of the U.S. Constitution, which doesn't apply to state proceedings.

As Mr. Corsi-Soetoro points out, a state statute confers standing for purposes of these four ballot access contest cases.

The order is available here. These cases are turning into a birfer's dream for a number of reasons, not the least of which appears to be the fact that the lawyer they hired represent Obama couldn't find his own ass with both hands.

Finally, chalk up another idiocy for the Associated Press. Denying a motion to quash, which is what the judge did here, and ordering someone to appear at a hearing are two different things.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I think I am smarter than a Judge because I go to law school.

[ChuckF]

Aww, do you need more help with Article III? You can ask questions, petal.

[Stephen Maturin]

As previously announced, the President and his laughably inept local counsel stayed away from today's hearing before Georgia's Office of State Administrative Hearings. According to this, the ALJ called plaintiffs' counsel into his chambers before the hearing began and announced that he intended to enter a default against Obama for failing to show. Counsel insisted on getting their arguments and evidence into the record, so the hearing went forward. A quasi-literate birfer who runs a website called The National Patriot () provides this account.

The Pottsylvania Flash attended, of course, and was apparently in fine form:

California lawyer Orly Taitz, a leading proponent of challenges to Obama’s candidacy, made the latter argument. She turned and faced the gallery -- and the TV cameras -- during her opening statement, prompting [ALJ] Malihi to tell her: “Counsel, please address the court.”

During closing arguments, as Taitz began referring to documents that were not in evidence, Malihi pointedly asked, “Counsel, are you testifying?”

Taitz abruptly halted her arguments, took the witness stand and began testifying. Malihi soon cut her off.

So will the ALJ default Obama? He certainly can, as GOSAH Rule 616-1-2-.30 specifies. The only indication that he plans to do so comes from birfers, people for whom lying comes as naturally as it comes to our own Jerry Soetoro. The ALJ apparently ordered the parties to submit briefs by February 5, which suggests that he might be disinclined to enter a default. Time will tell!

Of course, the ALJ's decision doesn't really amount to a hill o' shit. His findings merely serve a recommendations to Georgia's Secretary of State, who actually makes the eligibility determination. When that happens the losing side can contest the Secretary's determination by filing a petition in a Georgia state trial court. At issue is Obama's place on the Democratic Party primary ballot in Georgia.

[LadyShea]

And the GA-SOS already said he would review submitted evidence in his determination, and certainly statements made by officials of the state of Hawaii and any COLB certified as authentic by the state of Hawaii will carry a shitton more weight than the products of Orly Taitz' ass.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And the GA-SOS already said he would review submitted evidence in his determination, and certainly statements made by officials of the state of Hawaii and any COLB certified as authentic by the state of Hawaii will carry a shitton more weight than the products of Orly Taitz' ass.

right, so why was there none of that offered?

[LadyShea]

It was. The long form birth cert was sent to the GA SOS, the person who actually makes the determination

Judge Michael Malihi, who recently refused to quash the subpoena summoning Obama, never addressed the request. He cut off another lawyer when he began to complain that Obama’s no-show amounted to “contempt for the judicial branch.”

“I’m not interested in commentary on that, counselor,” Malihi quickly interjected during the hearing, which drew about 80 spectators and members of the media.

Obama’s name is on the November ballot, put there by the Democratic Party under standard practice. The challenges were filed last year with the Secretary of State’s office, which referred them to the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Malihi will now make a recommendation to Secretary of State Brian Kemp. Kemp’s decision can be appealed to a Fulton County judge.http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-gove...t-1318908.html

So it's up to Kemp, then possible appeals.

[Jerome]

reported for no link

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So it's up to Kemp, then possible appeals.

there are no appeals, the SoS determines who is on the State ballot.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

reported for no link

Petty, J. She's not introducing new material. She's quoting from Maturin's AJC link, which you'd know if you bothered to actually follow and engage substantive posts instead of just regurgitating whatever propaganda you have at hand.

[Jerome]

right, he still didn't present to court under subpoena his credentials.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

right, he still didn't present to count under subpoena his credentials.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do present to count under subpoena his credentials?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

there are no appeals, the SoS determines who is on the State ballot.

From my now linked source

Kemp’s (the SOS) decision can be appealed to a Fulton County judge

[Jerome]

He is hoping on a punt from the State office to a county court, .. interesting times.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From my now linked source

See also Ga. Code Ann. § 50-13-19 (2011). However, the mere existence of this particular statute as well as decades of constitutional jurisprudence on the authority of non-Article III adjudications and the problems of due process in an administrative law context should not detract from or interfere with JEROME's characteristically bold, confident, and wrong legal conclusion that there is no judicial review of agency decisions.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I am smarter then the entire State of Georgia because i am in law schhol

:nada:

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

:nada:

10-4, champ But I do spell a little bit better than that.

[livius drusus]

I was wondering when chewing tobacco got a law flavor.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And the GA-SOS already said he would review submitted evidence in his determination, and certainly statements made by officials of the state of Hawaii and any COLB certified as authentic by the state of Hawaii will carry a shitton more weight than the products of Orly Taitz' ass.

Furthermore, the Secretary may be a Republican, but he knows what's good for him. If Kemp finds for the birfers, Obama will throw him down on a table and force feed him fake birth certificates and social security cards until Kemp dies! It'll be just like when Vincent Price made Robert Morley eat his own dogs in Theater of Blood. ("He just didn't have the stomach for it.")

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I was wondering when chewing tobacco got a law flavor.

....................

[Jerome]

cant trust a nigger on the court, you were warned, they are sex crazed.