I am withholding my thoughts for the time being. I will, however, say that I am wondering why Mrs Taitz, and the attorneys, did not accept the default judgement when they had the chance.
Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.
Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell v Obama – Judge Malihi Final Decision – Georgia Ballot Challenge – 2/3/2012
@Lucas Daniel Smith said:
“… I am wondering why Mrs Taitz, and the attorneys, did not accept the default judgement when they had the chance.”
The following two comments were made in the Free Republic thread titled, ‘Judge Malihi Rules Against Plaintiffs: Says Obama Born In Hawaii Therefore Natural Born Citizen’, which was started 2/3/2012 by ‘GregNH’. I think both these comments make good sense so I am quoting them below:
COMMENT #105 (‘visually_augmented)
”He offered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. They preferred to have him rule on he merits of the case.” (referenced quote from COMMENT #89 by BuckeyeTexan)
“But the plaintiffs could not have appealed the decision unless it was heard on merits. And the goal of this case (as far as I could tell) was to provide some sort of precedent toward other states. It looks like Malahi didn’t want any part of that.
Besides, if a default judgment had been made, it would have just escalated the decision to the SOS who would most likely taken the Hawaiian BC at face value.
It was really the only choice they had…”
COMMENT #160 (Seizethecarp)
“Yes, he used the Indiana Ankeny court ruling from what I read. That thing is Swiss cheese if someone would just step up and challenge the nonsense written in it.” (referenced quote from COMMENT #51 by Red Steel)
“I agree. Malihi punted on his conclusion of law…which is the part of his ruling that can now be appealed all the way to SCOTUS, unlike the dead-end Ankeny case. Hatfield explained exactly why the Ankeny interpretation of Minor was flawed grammatically and in terms of legal construction, as has Leo Donofrio, of course.
The most important thing, IMO, and something that Obama has been trying desperately to avoid, is that Malihi accepted as a finding of fact that Obama’s Pop was not a citizen when Barry was born. Because of this, despite the tears of joy at Fogbow, Barry is now vulnerable being declared ineligible for the first time!
While Fogbowers are congratulating themselves for predicting that Hatfield and Irion threw away a default removal of Barry from the GA ballot by insisting on a hearing (opening the ability for Malihi to evade the default) a default would NOT have established a finding of fact in evidence that Barry’s dad was not a citizen.
I don’t think Kemp is going to disagree with this recommendation, but that will be incidental once it gets to GA Superior Court. While it will be too late to keep Barry off of the meaningless primary.” ballot, there is plenty of time for higher courts to act before November.”
The Free Republic thread can be viewed at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2842152/posts
you are right, the judge offered a “default” decision. But there are a few misunderstandings circulating about the meaning of this. A default decion happens when there are no hearings, in no way it is assured the default decion being in fovor of the plaintiffs. So allthough it is understandable many might see the culprit for this debacle in Orly Taitz for allowing hearings, the default decision, give the elements available, would have produced the same outcome.
another consideration. Many birther opinionists are willing to embrace any argument no matter how conflicting they are. Lacas’ attitude deserves some respect: at least he is coherent in pursuing one single major argument: Obama was born abroad and this makes him inelegible. And Lucas, while wishing you a fast recovery, I would be glad to hear opinions from you about the above.
Greatkim wrote:
I have not had a chance to do any in-depth investigation regarding the details of the reported offer of a ‘default judgement’ to the the plaintiffs. However, IIRC, all the reports I was reading at the time included statements such as “default judgement in favor of the plaintiffs”
For example, the 1/26/2012 Birther Report article by Dean Haskins, which is linked below, includes the following quote:
“UPDATE: From Plaintiff, in one of the Georgia challenges, 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.” (bold emphasis added)
The complete article can be viewed at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-ballot-hearing-judge-wanted-to.html
Bruce wrote:
I have not had a chance to do any in-depth investigation regarding the details of the reported offer of a ‘default judgement’ to the the plaintiffs. However, IIRC, all the reports I was reading at the time included statements such as “default judgement in favor of the plaintiffs”
and that is precisely where they are fooling you. Default judgement in favor of the plaintiffs simply is nonsense. A default judgement “in absentia” is somehow against the defendants’ interest in that they are denying themselves the chance to explain their arguments. But the judge will however decide basing himself upon the elements in his posession.
I have pointed to this since I first commented here about the Georgia hearing.
Yes! Good point!
I will certainly admit that, regardless of what the Judge SAID to the three attorneys in his chambers prior to the hearing, he COULD have and PROBABLY WOULD HAVE ruled AGAINST the plaintiffs.