PE, before the 'Occupy Wall Street' thread gets any more convoluted, I'm making the Judge Malihi case a new topic. I'm replying to the first part of your Sunday 01:52 PM post "Re: VERY on topic - about Occupy Wall Street - Part2 (b)" (241169&mid=244107) at
>>That's [the judge's pre-trial order asking "Is the candidate an Article II natural born citizen of the United States as established in US. Supreme Court case: Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163] a biggy. The answer has to be no. Of course they can choose to ignore the precedent.<<
Ignoring the precedent would take either unmitigated chutzpah or the judge and/or his family threatened with extinction . . . because . . . (1) the Supreme Court's decision in Minor vs Happersett was UNANIMOUS and (2) that precedent has been cited in at least twenty-five Supreme Court cases so far. The state of Alabama's Deputy Chief judge in the Office of State Administrative Hearings (i.e. a relatively insignificant judge in a relatively insignificant court) would be ruling against the Supreme Court's unanimous Minor vs Happersett decision and ruling contrary to those twenty-five Supreme Court cases adhering to the precedent set by that decision.
To make sure I don't inadvertently mislead you or base our hope on mistaken assumptions, I went back and reread the info in writings by both Leo Donofrio and Dianna Cotter. If there's an error in my opinion, an original error precedes mine.
When I reread Judge Malihi's pre-trial order (which is dated December 1), I noticed that "Minor vs Happersett 1875 Page 88 U. S. 163" is underlined and enclosed in a box, but so are all the other "case[s], statute[s], rule[s], and/or regulation[s] cited" in the judge's order. That must be his way of making sure they stand out clearly.
I also found at Orly's site a PDF of Judge Malihi's denial of Obama's motion (dated January 3) to dismiss. See if you think the judge sounds firm in this:
Orly's ecstatic announcement on January 3rd of the judge's denial of Obama's motion to dismiss might be a record setter. Two hundred and fourteen (214) readers commented!!
<Thank you god!!! I am ready to cry! After 3 years of battle for the first time a judge ruled that Obama’s motion to dismiss is denied. I can now depose Obama and everybody else involved without any impediment.>
>>I also found at Orly's site a PDF of Judge Malihi's denial of Obama's motion (dated January 3) to dismiss. See if you think the judge sounds firm in this:<<
Yes emphatically denied. But never underestimate the ability of the Supreme Court to find a penumbra emanating from the constitution that whispers into their ear and counsels the politically correct solution.
Still, go Orly!
>>Yes emphatically denied. But never underestimate the ability of the Supreme Court to find a penumbra emanating from the constitution that whispers into their ear and counsels the politically correct solution.<<
If the Supreme Court does that, breaking with precedent and the twenty-five (25) Supreme Court cases known SO FAR to cite that precedent-setter, civil war and a rerun of the American Revolution are sure to break out.
I fear for the life of Judge Malihi and/or his family. He definitely didn't take the safer fork in the road. It took great courage for him to dismiss Obama's motion.
>>Still, go Orly!<<
I didn't realize until last night that that Georgia eligibility challenge comprises three individual cases now coalesced into one. I probably read it somewhere earlier but was too excited to notice. The judge consolidated suits brought by Orly, Van Irion, and J. Mark Hatfield. The Hatfield name rings a bell (other than linked with McCoy), but not Irion's.
Did you read the article at L 659354? It quotes a number of Irion's comments and is very much worth reading because of the reason, regarding the Constitution, in the comment (at L) below the article's introductory paragraph(s). That article also says:
<Malihi agreed with plaintiffs’ arguments that Georgia Election Code mandates “every candidate for federal and state office” shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought . . . .
Malihi said, “Statutory provisions must be read as they are written … Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden.”>
Can you imagine what America would be like today if the Supreme Court judges faithfully adhered to Malihi's standard?
>> . . . Yes, I read it recently, too. But I couldn't find the recent source. . . .<<
Oh well, I'd rather think he's biding his time than he's spinning his wheels so thinking he's waiting for the right moment makes me feel better.
>> . . . The peach tree photos I found are beautiful. Did you know they have huge pink blossoms in the spring?<<
No. A lot of flowering trees around here look like that in Spring but I don't think they're peaches.
>> . . . His Atlanta atorney (Michael Jablonski) has filed, on behalf of Obama, a motion for the judge to quash Obama's subpoena PLUS to quash all the other subpoenas that Orly has issued to witnesses (friendly and hostile) for her case that will be heard on the 26th.<<
So we find out if the judge has any cojones.
>><2. Obama has no standing to challenge subpoenas issued and addressed to other parties. . . .<<
Yes I wondered about that . . . it seems almost like witness tampering.
>> . . . Give it a try and see if you get a Dell advert.<<
Thanks but I don't want one that badly:-)
>>I wonder if some nefarious group is doing dry runs in areas below DC.<<
I don't know how widespread the outage was . . . might just have been a small area.
>> Can NO ONE in the federal government be trusted?! . . .<<
Not by me.
>>I'm in shock that my previous reply posted . . . <<
Siesta time at ¥.
>> . . . Orly has subpoenaed Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ. She wants him to:[tell about his investigation into Obama'a lack of eligibility]<<
Good move but I doubt Arpaio will comply, he's not due to finish the investigation and report until well into February.
>>Does this Bloomberg report make it [FTC's complaint with Google] any clearer?<<
The complaint seems to be Google is favoring its own services. Is that a wrong thing to do? I thought all companies did that. I still don't get it.
>>Oh, this isn't about Apple, but the coolest status symbol I've seen in a long time . . . and USEFUL!<<
USB and Wi-Fi cuff links for only $250 a pair. Well darn, all my shirts have buttons on the cuffs. I wonder if it would be too tacky to use them on some of my shirts that have lost buttons on the front. Sort of like a tie tack? Hate to pass on such a deal. :-)
>>But why? He was just a kid and there were records all over Indonesia? They couldn't hope to hide that and Obama doesn't seem to have ever avoided the subject. It does indicate that someone was good at altering Obama's records though.<<
I've searched, not exhaustively but not cursorily, either, and cannot find exactly what the writer (Craig Andresen) was referring to when he said "Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time." I suppose it's possible he misheard or misinterpreted. I did find this overview of the three-part trial yesterday. It's by Sharon Rondeau, who reports in detail for The Post & Email. She mentions some things about Obama in Indonesia,.
>>Yes I saw that he'd have to answer to the evidence presented. That was the reason the judge permitted the witnesses to present. <<
That was a _very_ foresightful move. And now that you've reminded me of it, I'm wondering if Obama and/or his Atlanta lawyer expected no evidence would be presented if they were a no-show. Typically, does the judge just bang his gavel, render the default judgment, and go out for coffee?
The article to which you had to travel via Google is titled "Georgia Hearing: Judge Wanted To Immediately Enter Default Judgment Against Obama" . . . Oh! I just reread the first paragraph below that headline, to look for clues, and look at what reached my bleary (from reading and reading) eyes! I know I read and comprehended it before, but I forgot. I've uppercased it:
<. . . Before the hearing started, the judge called the attorneys into his chambers and explained that he was going to enter a default judgment IN THEIR FAVOR. Attorneys Hatfield and Irion requested to be able to present abbreviated versions of their arguments so that they would be on the record. . . .>
Link, if you want to refresh your memory, is the bI0gsp0t one here:
>>You won't have to hold your breath for long. <<
Just remember, after Judge Malihi renders his decision it goes to the Secretary of State (Brian Kemp). It's the SoS who determines whether Obama will be permitted on Georgia's ballot.
>>About Judge MMM, Malihi sounds very Hawaiian . . . sort of ironic.<<
Yes, I've been thinking all along that his name sounds Hawaiian. Now I wonder if, besides being Republican, Hawaii and/or its Department of Health figures into MMM's willingness to hear the cases and his denials of Obama's (attorney's) requests.
>>Not a clue but it could just mean Malihi has made his decision.<<
This is worth repeating.
<. . . Before the hearing started, the judge called the attorneys into his chambers and explained that he was going to enter a default judgment in their favor. . . .>
But SoS Brian Kemp is an unknown equation and there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip and in tainted wine toasts and in wired cars . . .
>> . . . Plus, the dirt diggers would find out more about Cain, . . .<<
Good point, Gingrich certainly wouldn't want any more of that. I'd hope he'd pick Perry but suspect it would be someone who would be a complete surprise.
>> . . . with the exception of L 662565 this morning. Did you read that one?<<
Have now . . . Obama just turned his back and walked on by and the media followed him. Yeah, that's what I thought would happen.
>>So let me try yesterday's best via Google. Go for the top one, the one at bI0gsp0t.<<
So the judge did rule in default for the plaintiffs. If that translates in getting Obama thrown off the ballot in Georgia that will be a big win and point the way for quite a few other states with similar sentiments.
>>If businesses didn't pay the world's leading 'finder' to list _prominently_ the items they pay said 'finder' to list, perhaps it wouldn't be an issue. But in this case, those buyers feel they're not receiving the service for which they paid. If you paid the world's leading 'finder' to help seekers find your co$tly announcement(s), would you think said 'finder' was wrong to relegate your costly item to some position below that finder's own announcements? . . .<<
I see and I suppose I'd think it wrong but if I was Pepsi Cola I wouldn't be asking (or paying) Coca Cola to push my drinks . . . I think I'd know what kind of service to expect.