WELDEN v OBAMA - ACT II - FULTON COUNTY GA SUP. CT. - ACT III SCOGA

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23574

With the GA Ballot Challenge Thread kinda waaaaaay out there in length, and as is our custom at Fogbow (and formerly at PJ) I am going to begin new threads for the appeals in GA to the ballot challenges.

Welden docs shortly.

2012-02-14 - WELDEN - Motion for Emergency Stay and Preliminary Injunction

2012-02-14 - WELDEN - Petition for Appeal of SOS Decision

2012-02-14 - WELDEN - Van Irion Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9393

realist wrote:

With the GA Ballot Challenge Thread kinda waaaaaay out there in length, and as is our custom at Fogbow (and formerly at PJ) I am going to begin new threads for the appeals in GA to the ballot challenges.

Apparently, these imbeciles don't understand what a "stay" is and why you would want it. Hint to morons: all a "stay" would do is keep Obama on the ballot until after you fail to prove your case.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23574

And like Orly, Van Irion seems incapable of reading the rulz...

From the Motion for Pro Hac Vice...

Quote:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have served the opposing party in this matter with a copy of Petitioner’s Motion to Admit Attorney Van R. Irion Pro Hac Vice by sending a copy via first class U.S. mail to attorney Michael Jablonski at 260 Brighton Rd. NE, Atlanta, GA 30309. A copy was also sent via e-mail addressed to: Michael Jablonski Michael.jablonski@comcast.net
This the 14th day of February, 2012

From the Rulz...

Quote:

1. Verified Application. An eligible Domestic Lawyer seeking to appear in a proceeding pending in this state as counsel pro hac vice shall file a verified application with the court where the litigation is filed. The application shall be served on all parties who have appeared in the case and the Office of General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia. The application shall include proof of service. The court has the discretion to grant or deny the application summarily if there is no opposition

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23574

From the Motion for Stay and Preliminary Injunction...

Quote:

Standard for Stay and Preliminary Injunction
Georgia Courts have broad discretion under OCGA § 9-5-8 in deciding whether to grant a request for an interlocutory injunction. Kinard v. Ryman Farm Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc., 278 Ga. 149, 149 (2004); citing West v. Koufman, 259 Ga. 505 (1989). To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must show: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm the preliminary injunction would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) the preliminary injunction would serve the public interest. McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir.1998).

Well, there's the first epic fail.

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3898

realist wrote:

And like Orly, Van Irion seems incapable of reading the rulz...

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:37 pm

Prediction: the Georgia AG will move to dismiss on the grounds the SoS did not originally have jurisdiction.

Foggy · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:38 pm

Bububububut, that will confuzzle the poor birferz!

bob · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:39 pm

Irion also harps on the fact that the Ankeny plaintiffs were pro se, implying the court just went along with what the state argued.

](*,)

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3898

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Prediction: the Georgia AG will move to dismiss on the grounds the SoS did not originally have jurisdiction.

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:47 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Prediction: the Georgia AG will move to dismiss on the grounds the SoS did not originally have jurisdiction.

How deliciously evil would that be?

We're gonna need a bigger bucket.

Foggy · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 1:50 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Prediction: the Georgia AG will move to dismiss on the grounds the SoS did not originally have jurisdiction.

Who is the Georgia AG going to represent? I only see one defendant. :?:

Edit: I'm assuming that means Irion didn't serve it on the AG (or the SoS), also too. He has such struggles trying to serve people.

combatengineer · **Joined:** Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:35 am **Posts:** 189

Foggy wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Prediction: the Georgia AG will move to dismiss on the grounds the SoS did not originally have jurisdiction.

Who is the Georgia AG going to represent? I only see one defendant. :?:

Edit: I'm assuming that means Irion didn't serve it on the AG (or the SoS), also too. He has such struggles trying to serve people.

I'm at work and scribd documents are not viewable. Did Irons ONLY name President Obama as defendant?

Foggy · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:58 pm

combatengineer wrote:

Did Irons ONLY name President Obama as defendant?

Yes.

Irion.

And the Proof of Service shows only Jablonski receiving service.

kreisman · **Joined:** Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:01 pm **Posts:** 300

He appealed the SOS's decision, but only named President Obama as a respondent and only served his counsel. No service on the state.

Edit: Beat by Foggy. Are we helping the idiots?

combatengineer · **Joined:** Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:35 am **Posts:** 189

Foggy wrote:

combatengineer wrote:

Did Irons ONLY name President Obama as defendant?

Yes.

Irion.

And the Proof of Service shows only Jablonski receiving service.

Thanks Foggy.

So Irion files against the wrong party, Orly does the same and a generic person named 'Sec of State' and then magically makes herself a Plaintiff etc....

The appeals are better then the first round. Not like the sequel rule when it comes to good a movie...

kreisman · **Joined:** Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:01 pm **Posts:** 300

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Prediction: the Georgia AG will move to dismiss on the grounds the SoS did not originally have jurisdiction.

SF, can you explain this, please (or did I miss something)?

Foggy · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:08 pm

Now that we know that decision cost us 80% of our national nuclear arsenal, perhaps it's only fitting that the President, who personally negotiated between Ahmadinnerjacket and Malihi, should be the lead respondent in the subsequent attempt to save Western civilization.

Edit: Which raises the question: If Irion wins, do we get to keep our nukes? :-?

Loren · **Joined:** Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:20 pm **Posts:** 3898

Godwin's Law makes an implicit appearance on page 13 of Irion's appeal:

Quote:

Without the anti-majoritarian protection of the Constitution, Congress could legalize the killing of all Jews, for example, as was done in World War II Germany.

'Allowing Obama to be President is analogous to Hitler ordering the Holocaust.'

bob · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:21 pm

Quote:

Without the anti-majoritarian protection of the Constitution, Congress could legalize the killing of all Jews, for example, as was done in World War II Germany.

Congress legalized the killing of Jews in World War II Germany?

Chilidog · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm **Posts:** 1971

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Prediction: the Georgia AG will move to dismiss on the grounds the SoS did not originally have jurisdiction.

But the Georgia AG is not a party, at least according to what Irions has filed

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: the motion for stay/ preliminary injunction -- Irion demonstrates once again that birferin lawyers don't understand the irreparable injury/balancing of harm prongs of the test. The focus is not the applicant's injury; it is the defendant's injury that would be suffered were the injunction granted.

Idiot.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:32 pm

Chilidog wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Prediction: the Georgia AG will move to dismiss on the grounds the SoS did not originally have jurisdiction.

But the Georgia AG is not a party, at least according to what Irions has filed

The Georgia AG is the legal representative for all state agencies and officials, including the SoS. My guess is that a statute requires service on the AG of any legal action contesting a state agency act or determination.

Chilidog · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm **Posts:** 1971

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Chilidog wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Prediction: the Georgia AG will move to dismiss on the grounds the SoS did not originally have jurisdiction.

But the Georgia AG is not a party, at least according to what Irions has filed

The Georgia AG is the legal representative for all state agencies and officials, including the SoS.

But the SoS is not named as a defendant.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:37 pm

Chilidog wrote:

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Chilidog wrote:

But the Georgia AG is not a party, at least according to what Irions has filed

The Georgia AG is the legal representative for all state agencies and officials, including the SoS.

But the SoS is not named as a defendant.

But the statute granting the right to appeal requires the SoS to be named.

Van Irion is statute-challenged. He is allergic to legal research or subject to law library dust mite sensitivity.

Chilidog · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm **Posts:** 1971

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Chilidog wrote:

But the SoS is not named as a defendant.

But the statute granting the right to appeal requires the SoS to be named.

Don't go all lawyerly on me.

I'm just pointing out that the petition fails to name the SoS as a defendant (and failed to serve him as well.)

IANAL, but I would consider that a pretty serious defect

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

WELDEN v OBAMA - ACT II - FULTON COUNTY GA SUP. CT. - ACT III SCOGA

Who is online