Georgia Ballot Challenge

mimi · **Posted:** Wed May 09, 2012 2:57 pm

neonzx wrote:

:lol:

Quote:

[snip]
orly taitz
May 9th, 2012 @ 10:10 am

he does not sound like it by the e-mails. He seems to be a good guy, he is a licensed attorney, he is married, has children, sounds smart, humble and with a good sense of humor. So far so good. Sounds like a decent guy.

Her only contact with this alleged "attorney" has been via "emails!" =))

She always posts the emails from people, yet not this time?

I still say she's lying.

Piffle · **Posted:** Wed May 09, 2012 3:13 pm

mimi wrote:

She always posts the emails from people, yet not this time?

I still say she's lying.

Nah. You just don't know where to look...

Admiring Attorney wrote:

From: Dr.OrlyTaitz@myYahoo.net
To: Dr.OrlyTaitz@myYahoo.net
Subject: Tuesday
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 11:03:52 -0700

Dear Dr. Taitz, Esq.

Allow me, to interduce myself, I am a grate admirer,of yours and it also so happens, that I am a licensed Attoreny in eht state of Georgia. It came to my attention,that you have not had too good luck in our state, filing your challenges to remove the usuerper Barack Soetero Obama who uses multiple social Security numbers and commits fraud on we the People from office of president.

I am family man and have children plus a wife, as well as being attorney and would consider it a privilage to sponsor your pro hac VICE the next time you decide to continue you're curageous work in Georgia with lawsuit or challenge.

Sincerely, Francis Blaumeister, Esq.

p.s. You can check me out at Hubble & Martindail, where I was awarded a DV pier rating.

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

Piffle wrote:

Nah. You just don't know where to look...

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2529

Piffle wrote:

Admiring Attorney wrote:

From: Dr.OrlyTaitz@myYahoo.net
To: Dr.OrlyTaitz@myYahoo.net
Subject: Tuesday
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 11:03:52 -0700

Dear Dr. Taitz, Esq.

Allow me, to interduce myself, I am a grate admirer,of yours and it also so happens, that I am a licensed Attoreny in eht state of Georgia. It came to my attention,that you have not had too good luck in our state, filing your challenges to remove the usuerper Barack Soetero Obama who uses multiple social Security numbers and commits fraud on we the People from office of president.

I am family man and have children plus a wife, as well as being attorney and would consider it a privilage to sponsor your pro hac VICE the next time you decide to continue you're curageous work in Georgia with lawsuit or challenge.

Sincerely, Francis Blaumeister, Esq.

p.s. You can check me out at Hubble & Martindail, where I was awarded a DV pier rating.

Spelling errors, grammatical errors. Yes, that sounds about right... But why does the from show Orly's own address? Very funny Piffle :-?

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

nbc wrote:

Spelling errors, grammatical errors. Yes, that sounds about right... But why does the from show Orly's own address?

Do the commas shed any light?

MsDaisy · **Posted:** Wed May 09, 2012 3:33 pm

Plutodog · **Posted:** Wed May 09, 2012 3:35 pm

Coincidinc.

GreatGrey · **Posted:** Wed May 09, 2012 7:41 pm

MsDaisy wrote:

=))

Well that's a relief, cuz she was never gonna get past Georgia Rule 4.4, Appendix A, 6.

Quote:

6. whether the applicant has been held formally in contempt or otherwise sanctioned by any court in a written order for disobedience to its rules or orders, and, if so: the nature of the allegations; the name of the court before which such proceedings were conducted; the date of the contempt order or sanction, the caption of the proceedings, and the substance of the court’s rulings (a copy of the written order or transcript of the oral rulings shall be attached to the application);

http://www.georgiacourts.org/courts/sup ... ule_4.html

.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed May 09, 2012 8:28 pm

Yabbut, it's only a court in . . . Georgia. Well, a different part of Georgia. And Federal court, not state you. You know. One of those sissy courts with limited jurisdiction to Federal stuff.

Of course, any challenge in the general election will present a Federal question. So Taitz can try to get admitted PHV first in state court. If she's successful -- which is doubtful -- she gets to try all over again if/when the case gets removed to Federal court.

If Taitz had any common sense she'd avoid Georgia at this point. She should stick to the states where she's been successful, like New Hampshire and Indiana.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Wed May 09, 2012 9:08 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

If Taitz had any common sense she'd avoid Georgia at this point. She should stick to the states where she's been successful, like New Hampshire and Indiana.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Wed May 09, 2012 9:39 pm

Piffle wrote:

neonzx wrote:

:lol: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=58324 :lol:

Quote:

It might be a weird coincidence, but I just posted info that I am planning to file a general election challenge in GA, and immediately a defamatory article appeared in GA

I don't get it. What's defamatory? Surely she cannot object to "scary-strange Russian person."

Maybe Orlena just stck to this bit: ".. dishonest discourse would be more befitting a used camel salesman. .."

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Wed May 09, 2012 9:43 pm

Piffle wrote:

mimi wrote:

She always posts the emails from people, yet not this time?

I still say she's lying.

Nah. You just don't know where to look...

Admiring Attorney wrote:

...
Allow me, to interduce myself, I am a grate admirer,of yours and it also so happens, that I am a licensed Attoreny in eht state of Georgia. It came to my attention,that you have not had too good luck in our state, filing your challenges to remove the usuerper Barack Soetero Obama who uses multiple social Security numbers and commits fraud on we the People from office of president.
....

Likely quoting Washington DC court Judge Lamberth, to Orly: "It's not your day today" =))

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3891

neonzx wrote:

:lol: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=58324 :lol:

Quote:

It might be a weird coincidence, but I just posted info that I am planning to file a general election challenge in GA, and immediately a defamatory article appeared in GA

By "immediately," she appears to mean "several hours earlier." That article is time-stamped midnight last night, well before she posted about new challenges.

So who's been using the time machine without authorization?

LM K · **Posted:** Thu May 10, 2012 1:01 am

Edit: Dammit; Mimi thought my thought before I thought it!! [-X

So, where are the emails from Mr/Ms Sponsoring Attorney? :-k

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

David Farrar announces his new litigation strategy:

Quote:

davidfarrar 20 minutes ago in reply to Arthur

Just one note of correction: This was not the legal theory I tried to carry forward in my last Georgia primary challenge. It was the old Minor definition of a person born of two citizen-parents within the jurisdiction. Of course, a person born of two citizen-parents within the jurisdiction would meet Vattel's inheritance of citizenship standard, and then some. But essentially, to be an Article II "natural born" Citizen all one needs be is to become is a member in the society of one's father.

This will be the legal basis for my next Georgia challenge as soon as the DNC convention is over and "officially" designates candidate Barack Obama as their presidential nominee.*

ex animo
davidfarrar

* I also plan to present the same legal challenge against Mitt Romney's name being placed on the Georgia's general election ballot, as well, and not a natural born Citizen.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley ... -532019275

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Perhaps someone can suggest that Mr. Ex Animo read section 214 of the American constitutional bible, Vattel's Law of Nations.

Buffoon.

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3891

"But essentially, to be an Article II "natural born" Citizen all one needs be is to become is a member in the society of one's father."

Ignoring the poor grammar for the moment, that sentence just doesn't sound very...American, does it?

Framing citizenship status, and the ability to hold public office, in terms of being "a member in the society of one's father" sounds so classist and antiquated. Like it's describing qualifications for the British House of Lords, not the President of the United States.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 11:57 am

More from the ex animo comments to the above New Times article:

Quote:

WRONG, Nature is not subject to change based upon our opinions and therefore neither is nbC because it is defined by Natural Law not opinions of mankind. Our claim is undisputed. There is not one Supreme Court case anywhere in U.S. history that proves me wrong. Their physically can't be. It is an impossibility. It would be like a judge trying to interpret a statute that says the sun raises in the west and sets in the east. Nature determines where the sun rises each day, and even a statute or judge's opinion to the contrary does not make it so.

The laws of nature trump the opinions of plenary authority. All the Supreme Court cases support this point. Even Wong Kim Ark supports my position not your. Wong Kim Ark cannot extend the legal right to be President to naturalized citizens. If it could, then the idea that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land is meaningless and it would just be like any ordinary statute subject to judicial interpretation and its meaning could be changed on a whim by some judge, instead of by Amendment.

Does Nature have her own bar association? All the judges that have accepted WKA as prevailing have been wrong because NBC-ness can only be changed by amending the Laws of Nature and no one can do that. It's really very simple. :roll:

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 11:57 am

The whole idea that a child's citizenship depends upon the citizenship of the father is ancient sexism. It mattered to the inheritance of land, titles, other wealth, and social class. It was also extremely stupid, because before DNA testing it was impossible to determine who was actually the father. This worked both ways: a man could claim parentage of a child or could deny that parentage. I suspect that a probe of ex ammo's other beliefs would reveal that he holds that the husband is the ruler of the wife, that only men may lead worship services, and that women should not teach children over age 12, at least not in Sunday school. He is probably opposed to women having the right to vote, as well.

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 1:19 pm

Loren wrote:

"But essentially, to be an Article II "natural born" Citizen all one needs be is to become is a member in the society of one's father."

Ignoring the poor grammar for the moment, that sentence just doesn't sound very...American, does it?

Framing citizenship status, and the ability to hold public office, in terms of being "a member in the society of one's father" sounds so classist and antiquated. Like it's describing qualifications for the British House of Lords, not the President of the United States.

You're right. Insisting that the right to hold a public office depends on who your father was doesn't sound very American. Neither does insisting that the right to hold a public office requires that both your parents were citizens when you were born. Or insisting that the sitting President be forced to show his papers to be placed on the ballot to run for RE-election to the office he already holds.

But ex animo has done all of that. And it's not like he's worked alone.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 2:02 pm

Mikedunford wrote:

Or insisting that the sitting President be forced to show his papers, directly and personally to each specific teabagger who asks, and entirely subject to their approval or disapproval of what they see, to be placed on the ballot to run for RE-election to the office he already holds.

gshevlin · **Joined:** Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:05 pm **Posts:** 105

I read most of that Phoenix New Times thread and it is painful to watch Farrar slowly arguing himself into a corner...he reminds me of the Black Knight from Monty Python and The Holy Grail...as has been said in the past, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 2:17 pm

verbalobe wrote:

Mikedunford wrote:

Or insisting that the sitting President be forced to show his papers, directly and personally to each specific teabagger who asks, and entirely subject to their approval or disapproval of what they see, to be placed on the ballot to run for RE-election to the office he already holds.

.....or insisting the the sitting President be forced to show his papers directly and personally to each specific teabagger who asks, and entirely subject to their approval and if still having doubts are able to inspect the original in the vault along with all others of children born in that time for forensic evidence of tampering and faud before his name can be placed on the ballot.

Thats's what Broomhead said it would take to convince the birthers in Arizona. But we know better. That why all those records should have been sent to a US military base with a 24-hour guard for safe-keeping from Hawai'i officials.

MrBrown · **Joined:** Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:21 pm **Posts:** 411

This Society of the Father notion is not an argument new or separate from tried and failed 2 parent Vattelism arguments because courts have ruled that Obama IS a natural born citizen. Multiple courts have ruled that NBC is not related to the heritage or citizenship of the parents. Born on US soil=NBC. Period.

Next tact ex analpore will attempt shall be about Obama being left handed, and he'll dredge up some gobbledeegook new legal theory that mixes ancient concepts of sinestro and Vattel and argue that a person born to a non-citizen AND is left handed cannot be President.

If he files this, or ANY challenge in Georgia or anywhere, defense counsel needs to be present and burn the word Frivolous into Farrar's forehead for all to see from now on. Get the court to sanction spank him within a nano-penny of starvation.

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon May 21, 2012 2:40 pm

Loren wrote:

"But essentially, to be an Article II "natural born" Citizen all one needs be is to become is a member in the society of one's father."

Ignoring the poor grammar for the moment, that sentence just doesn't sound very...American, does it?

Framing citizenship status, and the ability to hold public office, in terms of being "a member in the society of one's father" sounds so classist and antiquated. Like it's describing qualifications for the British House of Lords, not the President of the United States.

That seems like one of the phrases to justify the inheritance of an unearned (by the child) position and power such as a Lordship or Barony etc to the progeny of the Baron.

Eff 'em!

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Georgia Ballot Challenge

Who is online