In February, Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi deliberately ignored fact, the language of the Constitution, and Supreme Court precedent in manufacturing the logically and legally impossible decision that Barack Hussein Obama was indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States and therefore eligible to be on the Georgia state ballot. This stunningly improper ruling–the sort to which the shameful disregard for common sense and legal ethics must always lead–made the judge a nationwide object of contempt and derision.
Although many court watchers were discouraged by Malihi’s willful corruption of American justice, he did manage to provide one important service for the American public before being bought off by Obama’s forces. By permitting 3 separate eligibility suits to go forward and be decided, however improperly, on their merits, Malihi had become the first judge to forgo the evasion tactic employed by so many of his corrupt colleagues on the bench. That is, he did not throw out legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility due to the plaintiff’s “lack of standing,” the irresponsible and cowardly procedural path taken by other judges who wished to avoid trying the case.
But if anyone believed Malihi’s choice to hear a case dangerous to the Obama Regime would begin a trend of judicial integrity, they have been sorely disappointed by the performance of Arizona Federal Judge Susan Bolton.
In December, Van Irion, lead attorney of the Liberty Legal Foundation, filed suit against the National Democrat Party and its chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Irion asked the court for an injunction to prevent the Party naming Barack Hussein Obama its candidate for President in 2012 by ruling he is not a “natural born citizen,” as required by the Constitution of the United States.
Although both defendants were served with the action, neither bothered to respond or show up in court, something of a standard practice by Obama and his colleagues. When Irion asked the court for a default judgment against the Democrat Party and Schultz, Judge Bolton denied the motion, claiming the Democrat Party had not been properly served according to HER particular interpretation of federal law for the legal service of defendants. As Irion puts it, “Bolton acted more like a defense attorney than a judge,” as she “…denied [a] motion for default judgment by interpreting a procedural rule in a way that it has apparently never been interpreted before.”
Although Irion explained the law to Bolton and provided the proof-of-delivery receipt from the USPS, Judge Bolton still refused to accept the written delivery certification of the Post Office! Irion explains, “What’s disturbing about [this] ruling is the fact that most courts routinely grant default judgments when defendants don’t show up. If a defendant later show up and proves they were not properly served the court can easily vacate the judgment…”
In short, Judge Bolton not only ignored usual court procedure, she became counsel for the interests of the Democrat Party, “…[asserting] defenses that the absent defendant didn’t offer on its own behalf.”
As Diogenes spent a lifetime looking for an honest man, the American people have spent 3 years in search of an honest judge! Surely, one must exist somewhere.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.