Placeholder for discussion and posting documents as soon as we have them.

Now on the docket but I don't have the docs yet.

I should point out that Swensson's appeal is separate from Powell's' on the docket, and that Swensson is assigned a different judge than Powell, and both of them are different than the judge assigned to Orly's "appeal."

Having not seen the pleadings of either Swensson or Powell, I do not know whether they are identical or not so I'm going to make a placeholder thread for Powell and edit the title of this thread to remove Powell.

If the end up consolidated or all four end up consolidated, I'll make adjustments to the threads at that time.

Seriously? All four appeals, even home-turf attorney Hatfield's, have been filed against 'Defendant Barack Obama'?

NO ONE named the Secretary of State?? Not even as a secondary party?

Well, we'll know for sure when we get all the pleadings.

Also. Too. According to the Uniform Rules...

Actually, it looks like Orly attempted to name the SoS. Either that or she's decided that Obama is the SoS.

Beat me to it! (I was searching for the response). Also, since she was the first to file, SHE doesn't have to mention the other parties!
Stopped clock, and all that ....

Which Secretary of State did she name?

The caption reads, and I quote:

Sheesh. With all the Barack Obamas that Neil Sankey managed to discover, just by the law of averages you know one of them has to be a Secretary of State somewhere ...

Yes, but Which One??? Is Orly being deliberately vague for some legal reason???

Well, she's legally insane and legally incompetent.

OK.

So the real question here is this: Does Jablonski ask for costs, or does he request more punative sanctions against Hatfield?

Don't think so, myself. We're discussing the fact that none of the plaintiffs correctly named the defendant, and it got a little jokey there for a minute.

This is the Swensson thread, and Swensson only named the president as defendant (or "respondent"). That's going to cause delay, at the very least. Also, filing separate lawsuits for Swensson and Powell will likely cause some additional delay, and in fact, all four cases should be in front of the same judge.

• Court tells Hatfield: You must name the SoS.
  
  
• Hatfield names and serves the SoS.
  
  
• Court also tells Hatfield in the Powell case, Irion in the Welden case, and Orly in the Farrar case: You must name the SoS.
  
  
• If the SoS isn't already very acutely aware of these cases (which I believe they are), they'll soon know that there are four cases that should all be in front of the same judge.

The primary is March 6. Today is Feb. 16.

Tick tock.

Also at Jack's...

Swensson v Obama - Petition for Judicial Review

Orly's naming of the President as sole defendant is natural for her. After all, this is not a ballot challenge but a criminal proceeding that will result in the President "at least" going to jail.

The other two stooges, who in spite of not testifying in the middle of their closings, still equally lost along side of Orly against that empty chair. I do wonder though if their lack of naming the SoS is more to keep their cases "alive" in the purgatory of appeals longer and not incompetence. After all the birfers are foolish enough to believe that if the appeals are still ongoing past March 6 that somehow the courts will decide, even though they lack a tardis, that they have some sekrit power to um, do something in relation to this case which results in the President being arrested.

I have some legal procedure questions, that I don't want to put out in the open, so to speak.

Who can I PM?

Swensson's and Powell's appeals petitions look extremely similar; why file two? (Did someone's check to Hatfield initially not clear?)

Hint for Hatfield: There's a fancy legal word for when you raise an argument (i.e., Obama's birthplace) for the first time on appeal review:

riseupforamerica:

Did Swensson and Powell intentionally split their case in an effort to judge shop?

(Related cases, yadda yadda.)

I've not seen such notification, have you? Didn't think so.

http://www.georgiacourts.org/files/UNIF ... 10_10_.pdf

From the "Petiton for Judical Review" I found the first page to be most amusing. Hatfield jumps up and down about the necessity of expediting the judicial review before March 6. However the Superior Court clerk notes on the cover page that the defendent has 30 days to respond!