Some cold water on overheated birther-mania
Having done a little more research into the legal process, I want to try to clear up any confusion about yesterday’s birther hearing before we move on. And yes, we will move on quickly.
Under state law, Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi’s job was to gather the evidence in the case through the hearing process and then issue a recommendation on whether Barack Obama’s name should remain on the Georgia ballot. His role in the process was to serve as a fact-finder rather than final arbiter.
According to the birther movement, Malihi told their lawyers during pre-hearing conference that he would enter a “default judgment” against Obama for refusing to appear and for refusing to even send lawyers to participate in the hearing, and that he would in fact recommend Obama’s removal.
I think that’s highly dubious. I know you will be shocked to hear this, but Orly Taitz and others have a record of claiming important legal victories that turn out to be inglorious defeats. Among other things, it keeps the contributions flowing in. Nothing presented in the absurdist comedy of that courtroom yesterday would justify barring a sitting president of the United States from the Georgia ballot. It was a farce. The birthers’ only chance is a recommendation from Malihi based not on their “evidence,” but on the refusal of the Obama camp to put up a defense against it.
Until I sat in that courtroom yesterday, I wasn’t sure why the Obama legal team had chosen not to appear. But in hindsight, they were right. Showing up to refute the nonsense presented would have given the birther arguments a dignity they do not deserve. You cannot refute air and sheer fantasy. How many times can an opposing lawyer say, in so many words, “Your honor, this is just really and truly stupid”?
In either case, Malihi makes only a recommendation. The official decision on whether Obama will be listed on the ballot will be made by Secretary of State Brian Kemp, a Republican.
In a letter to Obama’s legal team, Kemp has written that if they refused to participate in the hearings, “you do so at your own peril” because they would not have a chance to put the facts of the case on record. But I think if anyone’s at peril here, it’s Kemp, and I suspect he knows it.
A word in his defense:
If you read state law, Kemp had little legal option but to go through the motions of the hearing process. The law states that if a candidate’s qualifications are challenged, “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” (emphasis mine).
Obama’s lawyers claim that Kemp had legal escape hatches that would have allowed him to avoid the hearing. Maybe so, but the word “shall” carries a lot of weight in such matters.
At any rate, the final decision is Kemp’s. Regardless of what Malihi recommends, Kemp does not want to become the Republican secretary of state who ruled Barack Obama off the ballot in Georgia. Becoming a birther hero would not begin to compensate for the lasting infamy such a step would bring him, especially because such a ruling would be challenged in state or federal court and almost immediately overturned on any number of reasons. Kemp would then look like a fool and put an end to any further political ambitions he might have. I doubt that’s the course he will choose to take.
In the end, there is no chance whatsoever that Obama’s name will not be on the Georgia ballot come November.
Of course, ruling that Obama should remain on the ballot won’t make Kemp many friends among a certain small contingent of his own party, especially now that the hearing has excited their hopes of victory. But that’s the predicament in which state law and these foolish conspiracy mongers have placed him.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
836 comments Add your comment
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
9:06 am
D. Farrar — “After checking with Judge Malihi’s office, all of the exhibits, documents and testimony was admitted as evidence into the record,”
Your concession and admission of error is noted and appreciated.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
9:14 am
D. Farrar — “Since SoS Kemp’s ALC will not accept copies of any internet images of any sort into evidence, why should SoS Kemp, or the electors of Georgia, for that matter.”
That’s not what Obama’s eligibility was based on, and it demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the issues in play here.
The State of Hawaii says Obama’s BC is valid. Under the US Constitution, all other States are now obliged to treat it as valid as well. Internet images and jpgs don’t even enter into the discussion. The moment Hawaii spoke, the matter was concluded.
“This was the time for candidate Obama to come forward and present, for the first time in a judicial setting, his evidence that he has met his constitutional qualifications to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States”
Nope. He’s not obliged to. The State of Hawaii has already done that for him. What’s your evidence that the State of Hawaii is wrong?
“and he simply ran away from his responsibilities to the electors of Georgia and to the people of the United States.”
Nope. There’s no such responsibility or obligation on any Presidential candidate’s part. Never has been.
Furthermore, there’s no right on *your* part to receive supporting evidence that you find acceptable on the matter. The failure to comprehend that is what got LTC Terrence Lakin thrown in Fort Leavenworth and stripped of his commission.
You will fail, Farrar. You don’t know it yet, but you already have.
Nathanael
January 31st, 2012
9:14 am
Suranis
“It shows all the evidence identified, but none as being in evidence.”
An oversight which Orly has, apparently, just noticed, as she’s now filed a petition with the court to have all of her exhibits entered. Here’s the link (virus warning: it’s to Taitz’s site): http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=30931
So it’s
a) true that Orly messed up in not getting her stuff entered during the trial;
b) true that the Court accepts stuff downloaded from the Internet (much of Orly’s was; she went so far as to have herself sworn in to testify to that); and
c) NOT true that the Court is not accepting evidence after the hearing. Or at least Orly better hope it’s not true.
Nathanael
January 31st, 2012
9:43 am
@davidfarrar –
““show me where in my case candidate Obama’s birth certificates were put into .evidence?”
I provided the link to Orly’s (belated) motion to have her exhibits entered into the record. Here is the link to the actual exhibits. That is, this is the stuff Orly forgot to have entered during the hearing, but which she’s now petitioning the court to accept into the record, all 208 pages of it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79963546/2012-1-26-Farrar-v-Obama-Exhibits-1-7
Now scroll down to page 41. Is it? Could it be? Naw, David promised us it wasn’t true. But it IS. It’s Barack Obama’s LFBC, entered into the record by Orly Taitz herself!
Knock me over with a feather.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
9:53 am
Nathanael — “Naw, David promised us it wasn’t true. But it IS. It’s Barack Obama’s LFBC, entered into the record by Orly Taitz herself!”
Stoopid Birfer Tricks.
David Farrar
January 31st, 2012
10:19 am
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
9:14 am
“The State of Hawaii says Obama’s BC is valid. Under the US Constitution, all other States are now obliged to treat it as valid as well. Internet images and jpgs don’t even enter into the discussion. The moment Hawaii spoke, the matter was concluded.”
I am sure Judge Malihi would have accepted the introduction of candidate Obama’s certified birth documents as self-authenticating due to your Full Faith and Credit thingamajig, but the sad fact of the matter is, candidate Obama nor his legal representation weren’t around to enter it, full faith and credit or not.
Again, the only thing a certified copy of a birth certificate proves is that a birth occurred and that a birth was recorded. Assuming candidate Barack Obama wasn’t born in a closet in the Hawaiian Department of Health building, the when, where and by whom, must be proven by independent evidence, namely the person’s natal hospital records, usually. It took Donald Trump just five working days to produce this evidence in the form of his natal hospital birth certificate.
Since candidate Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski made no provision to enter any exhibits or witnesses in his PTO, this whole disappearing act performed by candidate Obama was staged simply in a feeble attempt to remedy this omission.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 31st, 2012
10:26 am
Nathanael
January 31st, 2012
9:43 am
The Court, as I understand it, can accept facsimiles of certified documents taken as jpg images from the Internet, if predicated as such, but not the information itself contained therein.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
10:50 am
D. Farrar — “I am sure Judge Malihi would have accepted the introduction of candidate Obama’s certified birth documents as self-authenticating due to your Full Faith and Credit thingamajig”
It’s called the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, which is a document you’ve clearly never read.
“but the sad fact of the matter is, candidate Obama nor his legal representation weren’t around to enter it, full faith and credit or not.”
This is what you don’t understand, court reporter. As part of the US Constitution, it stands on its own, without *having* to be entered into the record. Once the State of Hawaii pronounced the BC valid, the BC became presumptively valid *everywhere* in the US, with no further authentication required. By demanding it, you are in effect demanding that a portion of the Constitution be suspended simply to please you. And that’s not going to happen.
“Again, the only thing a certified copy of a birth certificate proves is that a birth occurred and that a birth was recorded.”
Irrelevant, given that Hawaii has validated the BC. The BC isn’t what you should be looking at. It’s the Hawaii declaration of validity. You have absolutely no means to refute or discredit that.
“Assuming candidate Barack Obama wasn’t born in a closet in the Hawaiian Department of Health building, the when, where and by whom, must be proven by independent evidence, namely the person’s natal hospital records, usually.”
Nope. Under the US Constitution, Hawaii’s official validation is all the proof required, and it is of such a character as to supersede individual complaints or objections such as yours.
“It took Donald Trump just five working days to produce this evidence in the form of his natal hospital birth certificate.”
What you and Trump don’t understand is that the Hawaii declaration pre-empted you both before you even started to make noise about this. (laughing)
“Since candidate Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski made no provision to enter any exhibits or witnesses in his PTO”
None were required as a matter of US Constitutional law.
“this whole disappearing act performed by candidate Obama was staged simply in a feeble attempt to remedy this omission.”
Nope. He simply didn’t *have* to because of the presumption of validity that the State of Georgia is Constitutionally obligated to extend to the document.
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
10:51 am
@David Farrar — “the only thing he has done to date in this regard is post a few images on his Internet Whitehouse.gov site and called it proof.”
__
Now, David, you know better than that. The rest of us here know the facts too well to fall for such a blatant falsehood.
Have you looked recently at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html? Go there and read what it says:
“On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth. For information go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate.”
So, no, the image at whitehouse.gov is not simply valid because the President “called it proof.” It has been validated on an official State of Hawaii web site. There’s no question about it, the Full Faith and Credit clause has got you where it hurts.
David Farrar
January 31st, 2012
10:52 am
athanael
January 30th, 2012
9:26 pm
We have different case numbers signifying different cases; I think.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 31st, 2012
11:09 am
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
10:51 am
Not enough. The fact is, candidate Obama has never entered his two self-authenticating certified birth documents into evidence in a court of law,as Georgia’s Sec. of State: Brian P. Kemp has asked him to do as a prerequisite to placing his name on the Georgia PPP ballot and to address the evidence entered in the record by the plaintiffs in all three cases.
Candidate Obama has failed to enter his certified birth certificates into the evidence and has failed to address the plaintiff’s evidence challenging his presumptive claim to executive power. As a direct result of candidate Obama’s failure to prove his bona fides, his name will not appear on a Georgia ballot until such time as he does.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
11:16 am
@David Farrar — “Not enough.”
__
LOL, you’re the judge now! Well, then you will win, but I think that’s the only way.
__
“the plaintiff’s evidence challenging his presumptive claim to executive power”
__
BINGO! David, David, this is what I’ve been asking you for days. Please tell us — what has been established by the plaintiff’s evidence? That’s a crucial question, and you have not once addressed it.
You don’t have to recite it from start to finish — we’ve read the transcripts — but what do you see as the strongest “challeng[es to] his presumptive claim to executive power”?
David Farrar
January 31st, 2012
11:21 am
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
10:50 am
“It” is only a jpg picture posted on an Internet website, inadmissible in court, irrespective of how many times Hawaiian Health officials may say it accurately reflects the information contained in their files.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
11:27 am
D. Farrar — ““It” is only a jpg picture posted on an Internet website, inadmissible in court, irrespective of how many times Hawaiian Health officials may say it accurately reflects the information contained in their files.”
No, “it” is the document in the possession of Hawaii state authorities, who have duly validated and verified it as required by the US Constitution.
Your focus on copies and jpgs will be your undoing. You could only possibly prevail if you demonstrated some sort of malfeasance on the part of Hawaii state officials, but given that you’re off on a photoshop snipe hunt, you’ll never get it.
The document in Honolulu is presumptively valid under the US Constitution. You can’t refute or disprove that.
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
11:52 am
@David Farrar — “inadmissible in court, irrespective of how many times Hawaiian Health officials may say it accurately reflects the information contained in their files.”
__
No, your ignorance of the law is showing again. If a competent Hawaiian official confirms that a document “accurately reflects the information contained in their files,” that is proof. The document itself could be written with crayon on toilet paper. It’s not the document that’s at issue, it’s the information contained therein, and as Hawaiian officials have confirmed it, the game is totally over.
Nathanael
January 31st, 2012
12:08 pm
@davidfarrar –
Say, I’ve been taking a looksee at your initial complaint and PTO and, in all sincerity, they’re nicely done. Seriously. So some friends have started a bit of an office pool and we’re wondering if you could settle a question for us: who wrote them?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
12:12 pm
I bet it was one of those computer fill-in-the-blank proggies that spits out completed legal documents for you.
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
12:19 pm
And once more, David, what are the arguments your side made at the hearing that you consider to be strongest “challeng[es to] his presumptive claim to executive power”?
Nathanael
January 31st, 2012
12:34 pm
@Joe Hussein Mama -
“I bet it was one of those computer fill-in-the-blank proggies”
Though in this case, I’m quite serious. The initial complaint, I thought, was quite well-crafted. Someone really put some time and work into it.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
12:46 pm
Nathanael — Mr. Farrar is a retired court reporter. No doubt he’s acquainted with many legal professionals, and either engaged one or got one to do him a favor in that regard.
One then wonders why he didn’t go to the trouble of getting such a professional to help him with his case, as opposed to relying on that clueless Taitz woman.
David Farrar
January 31st, 2012
1:45 pm
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
11:52 am
It is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded, nothing else.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
1:47 pm
Yes, you’ve said that before. What does that mean — that it’s not proof of when and where the birth took place?
It seems to me that an official document is proof of the information that it contains. Why do you believe otherwise?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
1:56 pm
D. Farrar — “It is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded, nothing else.”
The verification and validation attested to by Hawaii state authorities makes it presumptive proof that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and eligible for election to and service in the office of the Presidency.
You’re concentrating on the document itself, but you’re completely ignoring the fact that it’s the *verification* and *validation* that make it the verification for eligibility you claim he doesn’t have. Once again, you should be attacking the validation process itself, since Taitz has already hosed your case up by letting the BC into evidence without objection. The only hope you’ve got to prevail is to demonstrate that something was wrong with or illegal about the verification and validation process.
David Farrar
January 31st, 2012
2:11 pm
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
12:19 pm
Bute v. Illinois – 333 U.S. 640 (1948)
“The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers.”
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
@David Farrar — “Bute v. Illinois – 333 U.S. 640 (1948)”
__
How utterly bizarre — the page that you link to does not contain the passages you quoted.
Meanwhile, you completely ignore the questions I asked.
1) What does this mean? “[A birth certificate] is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded, nothing else.” Are you saying that it only proves that an unnamed person was born in an unspecified place at an unspecified time? What does the President’s birth certificate mean to you — that Barack Obama was born, but we don’t know when or where? Or that someone was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961, but we don’t know who? Birth certificates are universally used to prove when and where a person was born. I can’t make any sense of what you’re saying.
2) What compelling points do you think your attorney made at the hearing that would have some bearing on the President’s eligibility? That strikes me as the most basic of questions, and you keep running away from it.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
2:45 pm
D. Farrar — “Bute v. Illinois – 333 U.S. 640 (1948)”
You missed, of course, the fact that the decision cites the Due Process Clause, *not* the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Plus, as Arthur points out, it doesn’t contain the matter you quoted.
Good try, though. Would you like to have another go at it?
Nathanael
January 31st, 2012
3:31 pm
@davidfarrar
You repeatedly insisted your case did not introduce the President’s birth certificate when in fact your counsel did (see my link upthread). Suddenly, you’ve gone silent on that claim.
Further, the affidavit (pp.51-55 at the above link) of your own witness, Susan Jordan, which your counsel also entered into the record, lays out the entire provenance of the White House PDF file, two copies of which (pp.41,43) your own counsel also placed into the record. Jordan goes into great detail describing the process by which President Obama obtained the two certified copies of his LFBC, and cites Hawaiian state officials, from Dr. Fukino to Director Fuddy to AG Louie to Governor Abercrombie, vetting and corroborating the information in those documents all along the way — from the original in their files, to the certified copies Fuddy handed to Judith Corley, and right on through to the White House PDF. Jordan’s affidavit lays out the complete provenance of the President’s copies of his LFBC, complete with corroborating statements from the state of Hawaii at every step, including Director Fuddy’s on-record statement that the information in the White House PDF is a true record of the original birth certificate in the possession of the State of Hawaii.
There is absolutely no legal wiggle-room left. Straight from testimony and evidence your own counsel placed on the record, President Obama’s birth certificate is nailed down cold. The State of Hawaii states unequivocally that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on 4 August 1961, that his birth certificate exists in their records, and that all the information in contained in the PDF — a copy of which your own counsel provided to the ALJ — is a true and accurate representation of the information in their records.
And the FF&C clause of the US Constitution requires that the state of Georgia accept Hawaii at its word. Game, set and match, David. And your own counsel sealed the deal.
Oh, and you might also want to look up “judicial notice”.
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
3:44 pm
@Nathanael — “You repeatedly insisted your case did not introduce the President’s birth certificate when in fact your counsel did (see my link upthread). Suddenly, you’ve gone silent on that claim.”
__
Yes, it’s been replaced by the claim that “[a birth certificate] is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded, nothing else.”
So, yes, Susan Jordan’s affidavit proves without a doubt the provenance of the LFBC, copies of which Orly submitted herself.
But the joke’s on us — as David points out, all that document proves is that someone was born somewhere on some date. Damn, and just when we thought we won.
LOL!!!
David Farrar
January 31st, 2012
3:58 pm
Nathanael
January 31st, 2012
3:31 pm
I think I discussed this particular issue ad nauseum with another blogger here.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
January 31st, 2012
4:00 pm
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
3:44 pm
But the joke’s on us — as David points out, all that document proves is that someone was born somewhere on some date. Damn, and just when we thought we won — and that birth was recorded.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Logical Dude
January 31st, 2012
4:04 pm
David,
What proof do you have that President Obama was born somewhere else, other than Hawaii?
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
4:16 pm
@David Farrar — “and that birth was recorded.”
__
So, what does that mean? Was the name of the baby recorded? Was the birthplace recorded? Were the date and time of the birth recorded? If what was recorded was that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961, how do you get around the Full Faith and Credit clause, which says (among other things) that
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
Filter
January 31st, 2012
4:26 pm
David Farrar,
Perhaps so but I really don’t have an interest in wading through over 1000 posts to find it.
To a late comer it does appear that Nathanael has pretty much driven a stake through the heart of what I have read of your argument.
From the Heart
Filter
David Farrar
January 31st, 2012
5:44 pm
Nathanael
January 31st, 2012
3:31 pm
Repeating over and over again that candidate Obama’s birth certificate was entered into evidence, isn’t going to make it so.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
5:58 pm
D. Farrar — “Repeating over and over again that candidate Obama’s birth certificate was entered into evidence, isn’t going to make it so.”
The very post you cited specifies precisely where *your own counsel* entered them into the record.
You are quite simply wrong.
y_p_w
January 31st, 2012
6:17 pm
I think for all practical purposes, the attorneys introduced the PDF image and stipulated it was correct. Two of the parties were going after the two-parent citizen theory.
As for Full Faith & Credit, there are a lot of things the judge can consider. What is a “public act”. Would an official and unambiguous offcial statement by Hawaii’s Director of Health be considered a “public act”?
Also – I heard reference to introducing a certified copy before a “court of law”. First – I never heard that SoS Kemp actually asked for that specifically. There are rumors that a certified copy has been delivered to him. I personally think that would be a good idea, as it would avoid a circus atmosphere if it were introduced in the hearing. Second, this was not a “court of law”. It was an administrative hearing.
I would think that Kemp’s office sees birth certificates from other states in some capacity. Their voter registration procedures don’t actually require a proof of citizenship – just an affidavit. Other states (like Arizona) do accept birth certificates as proof of citizenship for voter registration. If he’s gone one, I’d think he’d bypass anything that went on in the hearing.
Nathanael
January 31st, 2012
9:03 pm
@davidfarrar –
“all that document proves is that someone was born somewhere on some date … — and that birth was recorded.”
It’s as simple as this, David: The Hawaii DOH has reported that it gets about 50 requests a month for copies of the President’s birth certificate — including repeated requests, demands and subpoenas from your own counsel. It denies every one of those requests.
There is only one person on the planet whose request for copies of that birth certificate have NOT been denied: the President of the United States.
Setting aside the many official statements from multiple state officials, that fact alone is proof incontrovertible that the State of Hawaii recognizes not that “someone, somewhere” was born, but specifically that the sitting President of the United States of America was born on the 4th of Aug, 1961, and that the birth certificate in question, copies of which your own counsel entered into the record, belongs to him.
You may want to obfuscate about “someone, somewhere”, but the state of Hawaii is quite specific, and the Full Faith and Credit clause guarantees your obfuscation will go nowhere fast.
Arthur B.
January 31st, 2012
9:44 pm
David, what about my question? What do you mean when you say “that birth was recorded”?
Do you agree that in the records there would be the name of the baby, and the place and date of birth?
Nathanael
January 31st, 2012
11:49 pm
@y_p_w – “I think for all practical purposes, the attorneys introduced the PDF image and stipulated it was correct.”
While perfectly true, David insists the three cases were separate, a hard, dark line of demarcation drawn between them, and refuses to admit that evidence introduced in the other cases has any applicability to his own.
He has been adamant that his case neither introduced the birth certificate nor stipulated to its validity, and therefore whatever transpired between the other counsels and the court is irrelevant to the case Taitz presented.
So be it. We don’t need to talk about the other cases. David is wrong. Taitz has introduced a copy of the LFBC (pp.41, 43 at the link I provided upthread), together with Linda Jordan’s affidavit (pp.51-55), David is having to deal with the fact that his own case hangs itself, no help required from the other attorneys.
He’s now moved on to obfuscation: “The birth certificate only proves that someone, somewhere, was born, but doesn’t prove that that person is the man now occupying the White House.” Of course, the state of Hawaii, in both word and deed, has been quite clear on that point, and Taitz was nice enough to enter into evidence a copy of Jordan’s affidavit, which unequivocally draws the line straight from the “vault copy” in the Hawaii DOH to the White House PDF, proving that David is reduced to grasping at straws.
So really, anything introduced in the other cases is simply icing on the cake. Taitz has hung herself with her own rope and made it impossible for Malihi to rule against the president, no matter how much he’d wanted to.
@davidfarrar -
Every time you argue that the President should have shown up to enter his certified birth certificate, you acknowledge that he is the only one who possesses certified copies. And why is that? Because the state of Hawaii recognizes him as the individual listed in that birth record (which is what Arthur B. is getting at above). At that point Full Faith and Credit takes over, and Malihi has no choice but to rule the President is eligible.
Nathanael
February 1st, 2012
1:00 am
@Nathanael – “of your own witness, Susan Jordan”
Correction: that should be Linda Jordan.
Suranis
February 1st, 2012
1:37 am
David Farrar,
Perhaps so but I really don’t have an interest in wading through over 1000 posts to find it.
To a late comer it does appear that Nathanael has pretty much driven a stake through the heart of what I have read of your argument.
From the Heart
Filter
Pretty much. All David over there has left is some fantasy that Judge Malahi will make 2 recommendations that Obama is entitled to be on the ballot and one recommendation that he is not entitled to be on the ballot because he magicly wont know about the BC, or something. And Kemp will order that Obama will be placed on the ballot twice as he is entitled to be on the ballot and then order that he NOT be placed on the ballot as he is NOT entitled to be on it.
Logical, huh?
Oh and as for his statement D. Farrar — “After checking with Judge Malihi’s office, all of the exhibits, documents and testimony was admitted as evidence into the record,” this just shows how full of crap he is, as his own lawyer put in a motion after he wrote that moving that the evidence she identified at the hearing be admitted into evidence. So he was lying. Surprised?
Ahh its good to have the truth on ones side
Joe Hussein Mama
February 1st, 2012
9:32 am
I wonder if the people of the State of Georgia are entitled to pursue Mr. Farrar in order to recover the costs of his frivolous lawsuit.
Russell Bennett
February 1st, 2012
10:42 am
When Orly is allowed to examine the records in the Health Dept and is able to prove the cirtificate that Obama turned into the Court is a compurter generated forgery. Will you be mad at Obama for what he has done, or mad at Orly for catching him.
Arthur B.
February 1st, 2012
11:15 am
Russell, are you paying attention? Hawaiian officials have attested to the fact that the data in the birth certificate posted on whitehouse.gov matches the data in their Health Department records.
Why would the President go to the trouble of creating a computer-generated forgery when the real thing shows the same information?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 1st, 2012
11:41 am
R. Bennett — “When Orly is allowed to examine the records in the Health Dept and is able to prove the cirtificate that Obama turned into the Court is a compurter generated forgery.”
She won’t and it isn’t.
When Orly gets slapped down by yet another court, will you tools quit wasting time and money on this?
John Boehner's Tanning Bed
February 1st, 2012
8:11 pm
The same thing is going on in Alabama. Some nut filed one of these and the judge dismissed it and stuck him with court cost. He cried like a little girl. The dems agreed to waive cost if he would agree not to file any more ridiculous birther lawsuits. He boo hooed all the way down the elevator. Another guy was asked for a comment after his suit was thrown out ans he said “Roll Tide”. Just a bunch of wierd old racist that get disability checks and live in their momma’s basements. Sad
saoirse
February 1st, 2012
9:11 pm
I’ve been following this thread and am impressed that so many folks are actually being civil with these birther nuts who can’t seem to move on from their fantasy of getting our duly elected POTUS out of office no matter how many times they’re proven wrong and/or shot down along with sanctions in some cases.
The birther case in Alabama is hilarious . The guy really cried? Ah, poetic justice.
Which begs the question, why did the judge in Georgia accept the case in the first place? Does he really want his name attached to this nonsense?
Arthur B.
February 1st, 2012
9:25 pm
@saoirse — “why did the judge in Georgia accept the case in the first place?”
__
It’s a good question, and I don’t think the answer is entirely clear.
In the first place, the case was referred to him by the Georgia Secretary of State under the Georgia Administrative Code. The law isn’t terribly clear, and there’s some dispute about whether this is the appropriate way to handle a challenge of this type in an election of this type.
I wouldn’t be surprised if SoS Kemp thought it might be fun to needle the President a bit, perhaps giving a nod to those of his constituents who would like to make the “boy” “show his papers.”
But I don’t think that either Kemp or ALJ Malihi fully anticipated the depth of Orly’s inanity. While they may have thought in the backs of their minds that they might be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the complainants — even to punish the President for boycotting the hearing — Mr. Jablonski, the President’s attorney, made what turned out to be a very smart move in that regard. He was in essence saying to Malihi, this case is so absurd that you are welcome to deal with it on your own. I am certain that, even unopposed, they won’t have a single sensible point to make.
And I think the hearing completely vindicated that position.
Nathanael
February 1st, 2012
9:37 pm
@saoirse
“why did the judge in Georgia accept the case in the first place?”
Arthur gave the longer answer above, but I think the short answer is Malihi didn’t have any choice. He works for Kemp, Kemp said, “Do it,” and while Malihi has discretion over how it gets done, the whether is not his decision to make.
@Arthur B.
“The law isn’t terribly clear, and there’s some dispute about whether this is the appropriate way to handle a challenge of this type in an election of this type.”
True, however the fault in this case would be Kemp’s, not Malihi’s.
Arthur B.
February 1st, 2012
9:44 pm
@Nathanael — “True, however the fault in this case would be Kemp’s, not Malihi’s.”
__
But wasn’t the Motion to Dismiss denied by Malihi?
saoirse
February 1st, 2012
10:04 pm
@Arthur
I wouldn’t be surprised if SoS Kemp thought it might be fun to needle the President a bit, perhaps giving a nod to those of his constituents who would like to make the “boy” “show his papers.”
I wouldn’t be surprised either.
As far as Orly’s ineptitude, surely Kemp and Malihi know of the case in their own state where she was shutdown and sanctioned to the tune of $20,000 IIRC.
If more judges start charging them court costs and handing out sanctions these frivolous suits just might (a very big might) go away. The taxpayers are footing the bill and that needs to stop.
Apparently some of these idiots think court costs are paid by the “court fairy”. The rest don’t give a damn. That’s why I had such a good laugh about the guy in Alabama crying. I sure hope that’s true.
John Boehner's Tanning Bed
February 1st, 2012
10:05 pm
To Saoirse: Yes, it was pretty sad. I was in court ( I am an attorney) that day. A lot of these “birther” cases had been consolidated to one judge and the judge threw them all out. It was a big circus. The guy that said “Roll Tide” to the tv cameras was classic. All these nuts need to get jobs.
saoirse
February 1st, 2012
10:19 pm
@John Boehner’s Tanning Bed
Was it the guy from Cuba and the case was held in Birmingham? That’s the one I found on Google but it didn’t mention crying or “roll tide”.
I’m interested as I’m from the area although I live thousands of miles from there now.
Nathanael
February 1st, 2012
10:49 pm
@Arthur B. – “But wasn’t the Motion to Dismiss denied by Malihi?”
Yes, but that would fall under the how, not the whether. I’m not saying everything is Kemp’s fault, just that Malihi had no discretion about whether or not to hear the case.
Arthur B.
February 1st, 2012
11:01 pm
What I’m saying is that he could have exercised his discretion about whether to hear the case by dismissing it.
David Farrar
February 1st, 2012
11:51 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 31st, 2012
9:14 am
“Since SoS Kemp’s ALC will not accept copies of any internet images of any sort into evidence, why should SoS Kemp, or the electors of Georgia, for that matter?”
You are as welcome to you own misunderstandings as I am to mine. But we have a bit of a problem here because candidate Obama didn’t enter his birth certificates into evidence in our case — check the case numbers — so there is nothing in the court record requiring Hawaii’s verification.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
February 1st, 2012
11:59 pm
This case is going to be wrapped up, possible as early as tomorrow, with Judge Malihi issuing a default judgement against candidate Barack Obama, with a recommendation that his name not be placed on Georgia’s PPP ballot due to his failure to produce a certified birth certificate.
ex animo
davidfarrar
katahdin
February 2nd, 2012
12:00 am
Mr. Farrar,
What motivated you to hire Orly Taitz, and how much did you pay her? Were you aware that she is the worst lawyer in the history of the world?
terribletom
February 2nd, 2012
12:18 am
Mr. Farrar,
katahdin’s question is a good one, even if the scope is too narrow (i.e., Dr. Taitz is the worst lawyer in the history of the universe, not merely this planet). .
I’d like to add a question in the same vein:
I read your original complaint letter back in November — before Dr. Taitz ESQUIRE rode to the rescue — and if memory serves, you did not base any part of your complaint on allegations of bogus social security numbers, the “missing” year at Columbia, past nicknames the President may have used, or any of that other sideshow nonsense.
What interests me is how Dr. Orly Taitz ESQUIRE managed to convince you to expand the complaint to include every ideation she, personally, has had in the past four years. Were you and your co-plaintiffs advised of the expansion of scope as the matter proceeded? And do you, personally believe that the social security number nonsense has anything whatsoever to do with eligibility for the Presidency?
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
12:49 am
terribletom
February 2nd, 2012
12:18 am
“…advised of the expansion of scope?” …she has at least prima facie evidence. Which, I might add, is all I need in these Administration hearings because this judge knows Jablonski’s PTO was drawn up with ours sitting in their lap. So they knew where we were going. All they had to do was slap down candidate Obama’s birth certificates, and yet they never did.
See Jablonski’s PTO for the answer.
ex animo
davidfarrar
terribletom
February 2nd, 2012
12:59 am
David,
But prima facie evidence of what? My question isn’t about challenging the birth certificate(s). I can at least follow you when we discuss that subject.
What I’m talking about is the social security numbers and nicknames and boyhood photos schtick. Surely you realize by now that nothing presented along those lines accomplished anything other than to make you look like a crazy conspiracy theorist.
What on God’s Green Earth did that stuff accomplish as seen through the lens of a dispassioned observer?
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
1:11 am
terribletom
February 2nd, 2012
12:59 am
Well, as I say; we are all welcome to our own delusions. My delusion happens to be that this is all is uncontested documentary and testimonial evidence.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
1:12 am
terribletom
February 2nd, 2012
12:59 am
I am, do you think these people came there and lied?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Whatever4
February 2nd, 2012
2:11 am
I went back a few pages, interesting conversation. I’m interested in 2 concepts Mr. Farrar has mentioned.
1. What is a birth certificate for if it isn’t to show name at birth, date of birth, and place of birth? The idea that it just shows a birth occurred with no other information seems odd. What’s the point of having a state issue one?
2. If PDFs and stuff downloaded from the Internet can’t be submitted for evidence, then what actual evidence was entered? Almost everything in Orly’s 200+ page packet was from the Internet. It was also incredibly hard to read. The actual files and images available on the web are much clearer — as just two examples, the Obama Divorce degree and the images from the FOIA requests. It looks like things were downloaded, printed, faxed, then scanned a few times. Did the Judge get better copies?
terribletom
February 2nd, 2012
2:30 am
David,
Since you’re expecting a default judgment, what difference does it make if they lied. It’s all incontrovertible fact now, right?.
As to your second question, I can’t help but think about Clayton, my own small town’s much beloved idiot. He has long held that emanations from railroad tracks are coded warnings from outer space aliens. Perhaps he’s right. In any event, we kind of like the fellow and I can’t recall anyone ever calling him a liar..
That said, I think you should have called Clayton instead of, say, Chito Papa. From years of experience putting pennies on the tracks, Clayton is an expert, par excellence, on the subject of flattening. And also elongating. (Heh, did Chito cover that?)I
And better yet, unlike Linda Jordan, Clayton wouldn’t have had to illegally abuse a Federal information system to know that the President’s social security number wouldn’t verify with the same codes that everybody else gets. Clayton’s smart like that: he knows the Prez is special, just like Clayton is “special”. Catch my drift?
But on to Susan Daniels. I’ll take this one on myself because, honestly, I think Clayton would have had trouble deciphering expert opinion of a dense scientific nature, such as it was. So I’ll take this one on myself:
Ms Daniels: “Social security numbers are issued in the state you live in when you apply for them.”
Hokay, well mostly, kinda sorta. (Up, up,up, no down, down, up, down, up, up.) Hokay, I’ll give you that one. Hokay, so are you going to tell me that as long as Professor Daniels has been involved in this foolishness, she hasn’t been disabused of the notion that SSNs are not always issued “in the state” where a person “lived” at the time of issuance? Really?
Lemme ask you an honest question, here. Seriously. What would have happened if there were an error reading the last digit of a zip code — say a zero got transposed for a nine. Could the clerk (who, I’d add did not work in Connecticut, as stated) have pulled a number from the CT pool and mailed it to Hawaii? Oh come on. If you don’t understand the gist of the question, I’ll guarantee you that, by now, Susan Daniels does.
So did she come to the hearing to lie? Well, in the sense that Clayton might be lying, maybe not. Ya see, Clayton believes what Clayton believes. And I’ll betcha he’d testify to that in court. But for all his sincerity, I’m not sure he’d make for a very good witness.
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
6:49 am
terribletom
February 2nd, 2012
2:30 am
Those are all good questions. It’s too bad candidate Obama and his attorney wern’t there to ask those questions on rebuttal.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
7:03 am
Whatever4
February 2nd, 2012
2:11 am
A certified birth certificate only proves a specific birth has occurred and that that birth was recorded: meaning for identification purposes, the originating documentation in conjunction with the certifying agency certification should be used to establish identify.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
10:54 am
D. Farrar — “You are as welcome to you own misunderstandings as I am to mine.”
I have no misunderstanding here. The misunderstandings lie solely with your side.
“But we have a bit of a problem here because candidate Obama didn’t enter his birth certificates into evidence in our case — check the case numbers — so there is nothing in the court record requiring Hawaii’s verification.”
As has been pointed out to your repeatedly:
1) He didn’t have to enter them into evidence, since they are presumed valid due to the State of Hawaii’s validation. This is a key point of Constitutional law that you keep missing.
2) Your own SIDE entered them into evidence.
(laughing)
Arthur B.
February 2nd, 2012
11:07 am
@David Farrar — “My delusion happens to be that this is all is uncontested documentary and testimonial evidence.”
__
Evidence of what? What have you shown that is probative of his eligibility for the presidency?
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
11:23 am
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
10:54 am
I think we should agree to disagree on your points here since we are not going anywhere with them.
As I stated: There were three different cases, with three different case numbers.
And you are incorrect, the defendants had to put their evidence into the records, as did the plaintiffs.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
11:25 am
Arthur B.
February 2nd, 2012
11:07 am
The record speaks for itself in this regard.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
11:30 am
Jeez. Keep spending your time on this stuff folks. I’m sure it helps somehow.
He was born here and under Constitutional Law he is a Natural Born Citizen. To continue in this regard to try to prove otherwise is a waste of your time. But I’m sure when it’s all over and you are proven wrong, you will blame the government for wasting your time.
Butch Cassidy
February 2nd, 2012
11:35 am
I’m curious David, have you notified these people of your rock solid evidence of an imposter occupying the Whitehouse?
You can report suspicious activities and crime by contacting us using the information below. You can also submit a tip electronically. See When to Contact the FBI for more information.
FBI Atlanta
2635 Century Parkway N.E., Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30345
Phone: (404) 679-9000
Fax: (404) 679-6289
If so, what did their investigation yield?
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
11:37 am
D. Farrar — “And you are incorrect, the defendants had to put their evidence into the records, as did the plaintiffs.”
Wrong. The BC didn’t have to go into evidence since it is presumptively valid in GA under the Constitution. Your only hope in this venture is to prove that the State of Hawaii was wrong or mistaken somehow in its validation, and your side is focusing on the BC, which is already settled under Federal law.
For a retired court reporter, you show an amazing level of ignorance about how administrative courts work.
Fred
February 2nd, 2012
11:37 am
LOL Butch.
Chilidog
February 2nd, 2012
11:44 am
poor, poor David. He’s going to be so dissapointed when his grand quest falls flat on it’s face into a steaming pile of dog poo.
David, did you acutally READ what Orly submitted? do you think she followed the format ofthe example FoF and CoL that Malihi so kindly gave to her?
Orly is the anti-midas. Everything she touches turns to crap.
Butch Cassidy
February 2nd, 2012
11:53 am
Fred – “LOL Butch”
Thanks Fred. I find it interesting that David posts every two minutes until you ask the question as to what the response was from the FBI when presented with his irrefutable evidence.
Arthur B.
February 2nd, 2012
11:55 am
@David Farrar — “The record speaks for itself in this regard.”
__
LOL, I’m afraid you’re right. I was hoping you could describe it in a way that made it sound rational, but I’m not surprised that you can’t.
Adam
February 2nd, 2012
11:56 am
HEADLINE: Obama Approval Above 50% in 10 States and D.C. in 2011
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
12:12 pm
I don’t know what David’s problem is; I keep trying to help him and tell him how he could strengthen his argument.
Obama’s BC is valid in all US states. It became so — under Constitutional law — when the State of Hawaii validated and verified it. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, all States are now *obliged* to consider the Obama BC to be as valid as one issued by the considering State. IOW, Georgia *has* to treat the Obama BC as if Sam Olens just made a copy himself, wrote up and signed off an an Affidavit of Authenticity, and then personally walked both documents over to the courthouse.
That’s what David doesn’t get. The BC is unimpeachable. Attacking it as somehow having the wrong seal, or incorrect information, or weird Photoshopp-y layers won’t gain any traction. It doesn’t matter what’s on the BC because the State of Hawaii’s spoken, and that having happened, it goes for all 50 States, full stop.
What he COULD do, however, is demonstrate some irregularity or problem in the verification process *itself.* He could demonstrate, perhaps, that the State of Hawaii communicated some problem with the BC to the Obama 2008 campaign, who orchestrated a coverup. Letters and e-mails might have probative value in such a situation. Perhaps Governor Lingle thought there was something funny about it at the time she validated the BC and wrote about it in a log or notebook. That’d support a claim of invalidity.
But attacking the BC itself is doomed to failure. And David just doesn’t get that.
Arthur B.
February 2nd, 2012
12:37 pm
Joe Hussein Mama — “The BC is unimpeachable.”
__
Actually, I think it goes beyond that. As I see it, the documents themselves are secondary at this point.
A State of Hawaii web site (http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html) says this:
“On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.
For information go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate”
What Hawaii is saying here (among other things) is that the information on the whitehouse.gov web site matches the information in Hawaii’s official records.
At this point, as I said earlier, it doesn’t matter if the BC is written in crayon on toilet paper. The State of Hawaii has confirmed — and continues to confirm, via their web site — that the information is correct, and that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961.
The reason we have birth certificates is to ensure that we can prove when and where someone was born without having to go to the trouble of having a competent state official run to the vault and check every time such a question comes up; instead we use a certified document.
But in this case, competent Hawaiian officials have checked and told us everything we need to know. Game over.
Fred
February 2nd, 2012
12:37 pm
You know Butch, sometimes in blog “discussions” you read a post that just cuts through all the asshattery and goes straight to the point. It does so in a humorous way but then again it’s only “funny’ because it’s so poignant.
Your FBI post was such a post.
Nathanael
February 2nd, 2012
12:41 pm
@Arthur B. – “What I’m saying is that he could have exercised his discretion about whether to hear the case by dismissing it.”
Ah, I see. I’m not qualified to answer that definitively (in fact, I can’t think of *anything* I’m qualified to answer definitively
), but yeah, seems reasonable. Or at least do things like grant motions to quash and make the case go away faster.
bookman parrot
February 2nd, 2012
1:14 pm
the sad truth is the libs wouldn’t care if BHO was legit or not legit.
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
1:15 pm
Arthur — “Actually, I think it goes beyond that. As I see it, the documents themselves are secondary at this point.”
I agree. That’s what David and his associates seem to be missing.
Nathanael
February 2nd, 2012
1:20 pm
@davidfarrar – “All they had to do was slap down candidate Obama’s birth certificates, and yet they never did.”
For two possible reasons: first, deciding questions of a constitutional nature may be beyond an AC’s competence, which may be restricted to questions of administrative qualifications. This is one of the issues Jablonski argued in his motion to dismiss, and again in his final letter to Kemp. On that premise, since a birth certificate would go to the constitutional question, to submit one would not only lend legitimacy to that which is, by Georgia statute, illegitimate, but would not serve the best interests of his client. And if, as it seems, this is one of the avenues of appeal Jablonski’s is preparing — that the Georgia ACLU and Kemp are overreaching their competence, then it would hardly help the case on appeal to have complied with the court’s overreach.
Second, I asked you up thread to look up “judicial notice”. You seem to be under the impress that Malihi can rule based only on the evidence placed on the record, which he must accept as gospel simply because it was uncontested.
Facts of common knowledge are susceptible to judicial notice. The judge is allowed to take noted of the fact on his own without needing expert testimony. The existence of Obama’s birth certificate might fall under judicial notice. If the judge starts reasoning, “What do I need to see to determinei candiate’s NBC?” “A birth certificate, ” would be right up there. A quick visit to Google would lead to the White House PDF, for which your witness’s has already provided the complete provenance. If the judge needs to see the birth certificate, he’s got plenty of options.
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
2:53 pm
Chilidog
February 2nd, 2012
11:44 am
Dr. Taitz followed the format of the example FoF and CoL that Malihi so kindly gave to her far more than Jablonski and his client candidate Obama have done this far.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
3:25 pm
D. Farrar — “Dr. Taitz followed the format of the example FoF and CoL that Malihi so kindly gave to her far more than Jablonski and his client candidate Obama have done this far.”
That’s funny. (laughing)
I used to teach at the university level, and never once did one of my students try to claim that their dog had actually *done* their homework for them.
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
3:41 pm
Okay, before Judge Malihi’s decision is published; I will say this much. If Judge Malihi overrules the plaintiffs case; I will support his decision and simple consider the fact that candidate Obama has met his qualifications. If, however, Judge Malihi sustains the plaintiffs case and Sec. Kemp overrules the judge’s decision; I will be just a little ticked.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
February 2nd, 2012
3:45 pm
@David Farrar –
__
If ALJ Malihi finds that, as a matter of fact and law, President Obama is ineligible to serve, and does so for convincing reasons (hard to believe, but just if), but is then overruled SoS Kemp, I wouldn’t blame you for being ticked.
But if Malihi rules against the President on default grounds, then I think Kemp has to overrule him. A decision of this magnitude has to be made on facts and law, not on Malihi’s annoyance over the no-shows.
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
4:08 pm
Arthur B.
February 2nd, 2012
3:45 pm
I see. So it’s a: head you win, and tails: I loose kind of deal? No, thinks.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Arthur B.
February 2nd, 2012
4:14 pm
LOL, no, you’re going to lose. We’re just talking about how.
John Boehner's Tanning Bed
February 2nd, 2012
4:30 pm
@ saoirse, You can still find some of it on al.com. That is the Birmingham News website. The “Roll Tide” cheer was to a tv newscaster. The hearing was on the eve of the NC game that Bama played in. It was not in court but in the hallway after the case was dismissed. Great stuff!
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
4:31 pm
D. Farrar — “I see. So it’s a: head you win, and tails: I loose kind of deal?”
No, no. I can hardly wait to hear the conservative howls of outrage when you start up these hijinks with Mitt Romney, as you’ve publicly said you would. That alone makes it a heads-we-win, tails-we-win sort of arrangement.
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
4:40 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
February 2nd, 2012
4:31 pm
Now why am I not surprised?
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
6:10 pm
Sorry guys:
This case is going to be wrapped up, possible as early as tomorrow, with Judge Malihi issuing a “default judgement against candidate Barack Obama, with a recommendation that his name not be placed on Georgia’s PPP ballot”… due to his failure to produce a certified birth certificate.
ex animo
davidfarrar
*using my literary license.
Arthur B.
February 2nd, 2012
6:17 pm
LOL, David, that’s exactly what you posted lest night.
Dream on!
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
6:17 pm
Arthur B.
February 2nd, 2012
3:45 pm
And besides..we ain’t saying he ain’t bonafied. All we’re saying is he ain’t proven it yet; that’s all.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David Farrar
February 2nd, 2012
6:22 pm
Arthur B.
February 2nd, 2012
6:17 pm
I just wanted to make it clear that that last bit about the birth certificate and all is me exercising my LT.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Dena
February 2nd, 2012
6:29 pm
Funny, didn’t y’all say Malihi was just going to issue a default judgment and deny Obama’s placing on the ballot the first day? Malihi would not have needed more than 30 minutes to write the finding if that were the case.
Yet, here we are, a week later…