Malihi’s ruling was in line with the decisions of every other judge at the state and federal level who has looked at the issue and concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, which makes him a citizen just like every other human being who is born on American soil.

The birthers and their lead attorney, Orly Taitz, had the courtroom all to themselves for the Jan. 26 showdown before Malihi. Obama and his Georgia attorney, Michael Jablonski, did not show up for the hearing into the ballot complaints that originally had been filed with Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Georgia’s chief elections officer.

“It is well established that there is no legitimate issue here — a conclusion validated time and again by courts around the country,” Jablonski wrote. “The state of Hawaii produced official records documenting birth there; the president made documents available to the general public by placing them on his website.”

Jablonski urged Kemp to terminate the hearing and avoid further embarrassment for the state, but Kemp declined to do that. He also wrote a letter to Jablonski that contained this rather menacing phrase: “If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

Jablonski and Obama did not appear at the hearing.

Prior to the hearing, birthers boasted all over the internet that Malihi would rule in their favor and throw Obama off the ballot because the president did not appear at the hearing as the judge had ordered. Bill Simon of Cobb County, who cranks out the “Political Vine” newsletter, gleefully predicted that Jablonski would be stripped of his license to practice law because he had defied the judge’s order.

Neither event happened. As of this writing, Jablonski is still listed as an “Active Member in Good Standing” with the State Bar of Georgia, fully eligible to practice law within the boundaries of the state.

Even with no evidence put forth by the president or his lawyer, Malihi still ruled that Obama is an American citizen whose name should remain on the Georgia ballot for the presidential preference primary.

The judge was clearly perturbed that neither Obama nor Jablonski showed up for the hearing, writing: “Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Nonetheless, despite the Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request.”

Here’s what the judge said about the merits of the case presented by Taitz and the plaintiffs:

The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations. Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts. . . . For example, two of Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was forged, but neither witness was properly qualified or tendered as an expert in birth records, forged documents or document manipulation. Another witness testified that she has concluded that the social security number Mr. Obama uses is fraudulent; however, her investigatory methods and her sources of information were not properly presented, and she was never qualified or tendered as an expert in social security fraud, or fraud investigations in general. Accordingly, the Court cannot make an objective threshold determination of these witnesses’ testimony without adequate knowledge of their qualifications. . . .

None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive . . .

For the purpose of this section’s analysis, the following facts are considered: 1) Mr. Obama was born in the United States; 2) Mr. Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth; and 3) Mr. Obama’s father was never a United States citizen. Plaintiffs contend that, because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Mr. Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the Office of the President of the United States. The Court does not agree.

In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this Court. Arkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In Arkeny, the plaintiffs sought to prevent certification of Mr. Obama as an eligible candidate for president because he is not a natural born citizen. The plaintiffs argued, as the Plaintiffs argue before this Court, that “there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born Citizen,’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Id. at 685. The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive. . . .

For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly,

CONCLUSION

President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

Malihi’s finding is only a recommendation. Kemp, as the secretary of state, has the choice of accepting or rejecting that recommendation.

There was a similar situation back in 2000 when Randy Sauder, a Republican member of the Georgia House, decided on the last day of qualifying to switch parties and run for another term as a Democrat.

Republican Party officials said Sauder should not be allowed to run as a Democrat and a complaint was filed to have his name removed from the ballot. Some high-powered legal counsel was brought in to argue the case against Sauder: former attorney general Mike Bowers.

An administrative law judge held a hearing and subsequently recommended to the secretary of state, Cathy Cox, that Sauder’s name be taken off the ballot. Cox rejected the judge’s recommendation, however, and ruled that Sauder could run for reelection.

The name of that administrative law judge was Michael Malihi.

The current secretary of state has the same leeway to ignore Malihi’s latest finding, if he so chooses, and declare that Obama’s name cannot appear on the ballot in Georgia. If he does that, of course, a federal judge most likely will step in and overrule him, but Kemp nevertheless has that option.

It will be extremely interesting to see the course of action he ultimately takes.