Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 5836
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Quote:
We will not know whether the Court will take up our Georgia case until mid-fall. However, if it refuses to take this case it will clearly indicate that the Court simply refuses to address the eligibility issue.


Okay, not without the rhetoric:

"If the Court refuses to take this case it will clearly indicate that the Court refuses to take this case."

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9402
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Piffle wrote:
Where a dismissal for failure to state a claim (equivalent of Federal Rule 12(b)(6)*) analyzes and rejects the legal basis behind a purported cause of action (as opposed to the facts supporting it), it is said to reach the merits of the claim. This is in contrast to a dismissal under a Rule 12(b)(1) (or equivalent) for lack of standing or other element of subject matter jurisdiction.

Concur. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b):
Quote:
Involuntary Dismissal; Effect. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule—except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19—operates as an adjudication on the merits.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm
Posts: 7561
Location: Outa da doghaus and I ain't goin' back!
Occupation: Arf! Arf! Arooooooooooo! (Get that damned kitty!)
Is Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) based on (carrying out, laying out the procedure to carry out) a specific law having to do with what gets to what it takes to adjudicate on the merits? Is it equivalent to, say, a state's administrative rules where unless otherwise directed or prohibited by law or authority, a designated legal official can make rules not specifically enumerated or envisioned by law that generally administer the law?

(IANAL, IABAB)
I am but a bureaucrat

_________________
  • I know that there are no limits to which the powers of privilege will not go to keep the workers in slavery.
  • My friends, it is solidarity of labor we want. We do not want to find fault with each other, but to solidify our forces and say to each other: “We must be together; our masters are joined together and we must do the same thing.”
  • Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living.
—Mother Jones


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:42 pm
Posts: 3436
Location: The 808
Occupation: World-class procrastinator and perpetual late-bloomer.
labtech wrote:
Technically, you're correct in that Ankeny was not dismissed for lack of standing, but for failure to state a claim, and Irion technically erred on that point in his lawsuit. The fact remains, however, that Ankeny's lawsuit was dismissed by the district court and the appeals court simply affirmed that dismissal. So the Indiana appeals court was not ruling on the merits or on arguments presented at a hearing, but merely opining on what Steve Ankeny alleged in his appeal.


As Piffle pointed out, the appellate court in Ankeny applied a de novo standard of review. This means that they took a fresh look at the trial court's legal conclusions, and assessed the legal merits of Ankeny's position on their own.

The appeals court was reviewing an order dismissing Ankeny's case for failure to state a claim. That is, as Piffle and Bob have already pointed out, a decision that reaches the merits. To be precise, it is a decision that concludes that a case is entirely without merit. What it means is that the court has concluded that it is entirely unnecessary to have a trial or even a detailed evidentiary hearing because the plaintiff will necessarily lose the case even if they succeed in proving everything they claim they will prove. The trial court assumed that Ankeny's factual allegations were true, applied the law to those allegations, and concluded that Ankeny still could not obtain relief.

This is actually somewhat similar to what happened in Georgia. In the Georgia case, the defense declined to show up and argue. The plaintiffs were permitted to make their case and present their evidence without objection or opposition. ALJ Malihi the examined the uncontested evidence presented by the plaintiffs and concluded that the plaintiffs still lose as a matter of law. (IANL, but to me this implies that Malihi was clearly wrong when he denied the defense's motion to dismiss earlier in the case.)

Quote:
Judge Malihi in the Georgia Office of Administrative Hearings, however, did not dismiss Welden's case. Welden's case was argued by attorneys at trial, heard by Judge Malihi, and then ruled on by Malihi. Irion is claiming that this is the first birther case to ever reach the SCOTUS that was litigated by lawyers, heard by a judge, and issued a ruling prior to being dismissed by a higher court. Whether this is true or not, I don't know.


It may have been the first case to receive a hearing (but see above for my view on what the hearing actually accomplished), but it did not receive a trial. Judge Malihi is an administrative law judge, not a trial judge. His court is not the same as the trial courts. He does not hold trials, he holds hearings. The standards of evidence are less stringent in an administrative proceeding. And - again - even with relaxed standards of evidence and an empty chair opposing the plaintiffs, Judge Malihi still concluded that the plaintiffs must necessarily still lose their case as a matter of law.

As far as I can tell, the only real difference between the result in Ankeny and the result in Georgia was that the trial and appelate courts in Indiana assumed that Ankeny's factual allegations were true, while Judge Malihi decided to hold a public hearing and let the plaintiffs present that evidence. The Indiana courts preserved their dignity and applied the law. Judge Malihi presided over a circus and lost several hours of his life to a performance of the incompetent legal stylings of Hatfield, Irion, and Taitz. The outcome was the same - plaintiffs, as a matter of law, are not entitled to the relief they seek.

_________________
"If it was a legitimately stolen election, Romney's body would have had ways of shutting that down. Also, if a usurpation happens, even in that horrible situation of a stolen election, it was God's will." -A Legal Lohengrin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 4137
Location: Southwest of down east
Mikedunford wrote:
As far as I can tell, the only real difference between the result in Ankeny and the result in Georgia was that the trial and appelate courts in Indiana assumed that Ankeny's factual allegations were true, while Judge Malihi decided to hold a public hearing and let the plaintiffs present that evidence. The Indiana courts preserved their dignity and applied the law. Judge Malihi presided over a circus and lost several hours of his life to a performance of the incompetent legal stylings of Hatfield, Irion, and Taitz. The outcome was the same - plaintiffs, as a matter of law, are not entitled to the relief they seek.

My opinion may be in the minority of Fogbow lawyers and near-lawyers (Hi Mike!), but I consider Malihi's findings and recommendations to amount to a legal nullity. That is, because the Superior Court subsequently held that the ALJ (and the SoS as well) did not have statutory subject matter jurisdiction in the first place, his opinion is of no value as authority. Anywhere.

[I realize this conflicts with subsequent use as a citation in several briefs and even in a court opinion or two. Nevertheless, I believe a discerning appellate court would conclude that Malihi's ruling is so jurisdictionally flawed as to be of no use as authority beyond, perhaps, a passing footnote of historical interest.]

To be sure, caselaw citations sometimes include valid references to holdings that were reversed on other grounds, but a conscientious lawyer avoids citing opinions that have been reversed unless: (1) the appellate court left undisturbed the lower court's holding on the particular point of law that is cited and (2) the lower court would otherwise have been a court of competent jurisdiction.

In the Georgia case, the reviewing Superior Court did not reach ALJ Malihi's conclusions of law except to find error in his denial of defendant's early motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All of the subsequent proceedings should never have occured and since, without a specific statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, an administrative law court has no jurisdiction whatsoever, it cannot be considered a court of a competent jurisdiction but for the error or circumstance leading to reversal on appeal. The same might not be true had the opinion issued from a state court of general jurisdiction.

_________________
Hope springs eternal within the human uniboob. - Thomas Jefferson.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 5579
Location: You Sue-We Serve Legal Support Services, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96813
Piffle wrote:
[I realize this conflicts with subsequent use as a citation in several briefs and even in a court opinion or two. Nevertheless, I believe a discerning appellate court would conclude that Malihi's ruling is so jurisdictionally flawed as to be of no use as authority beyond, perhaps, a passing footnote of historical interest.]

* * *

In the Georgia case, the reviewing Superior Court did not reach ALJ Malihi's conclusions of law except to find error in his denial of defendant's early motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All of the subsequent proceedings should never have occured and since, without a specific statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, an administrative law court has no jurisdiction whatsoever, it cannot be considered a court of a competent jurisdiction but for the error or circumstance leading to reversal on appeal. The same might not be true had the opinion issued from a state court of general jurisdiction.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I join the minority on this point. The operative ruling -- the one that correctly states Georgia law that presents an impossible hurdle for the birthers -- was rendered by the Fulton County Superior Court. There is nothing the United States Supreme Court can do or say to change Georgia law.

_________________
“When I ran the Social Security number through Locate Plus, which is a commercial database that's used by private nvestigators and law enforcement personnel and attorneys, the only person who was associated and affiliated with xxx-xx-4425 was Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.” - sworn testimony of former U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement officer John N. Sampson, January 26, 2012


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9708
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I join the minority on this point. The operative ruling -- the one that correctly states Georgia law that presents an impossible hurdle for the birthers -- was rendered by the Fulton County Superior Court. There is nothing the United States Supreme Court can do or say to change Georgia law.


I note that Bush v. Gore involved SCOTUS directly intervening in a matter of state law and overruling a state court about what its state laws meant.

I agree it won't happen in this case.

_________________
"[T]he American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered together under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages, and. . .they grow more timorous, more sniveling, more poltroonish, more ignominious every day." H.L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:30 pm
Posts: 2912
Location: The Great Pariah State of Arizona
I join in the opinion of Justice Piffle.

I further feel the need to recount a recent situation involving attorneys who were very confused about judgments, on which entire textbooks have been written after all. I had filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and after dragging their feet for weeks my opposing counsel finally admitted that they had no facts to oppose the motion and they would therefore stipulate to granting it. The draft order I sent them, however, met with the objection that they would only agree to a dismissal "without prejudice," because new facts could still resurrect their claim prior to trial. As politely as I could, I informed counsel that I had never in my career encountered this bizarre interpretation of what a dismissal on summary judgment meant. They wouldn't budge. We took our disagreement to the court, and my brief actually used the word "bizarre" in describing my opponent's position. A summary judgment, I argued, is very plainly a "judgment on the merits." A "judgment on the merits" is most definitely not a "dismissal without prejudice." This was black letter law in our state, and most if not all other states.

The court agreed.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image


"What part of 'second' don't you understand?" -Judge Morrison England


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Posts: 2241
Jablonski has waived Obama's right to respond to Aryan's SCOTUS petition. Birfer tears on the horizon...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23943
Quote:
No. 12-5
Title:
David P. Weldon, et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States
Docketed: July 2, 2012
Lower Ct: Superior Court of Georgia, Fulton County
Case Nos.: (2012CV211527, 2012CV211528, 2012CV211537)
Decision Date: March 2, 2012
Discretionary Court
Decision Date: April 4, 2012

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 28 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2012)
Jul 25 2012 Waiver of right of respondent Barack H. Obama, President of the United States to respond filed.

Attorneys for Petitioners:
Van R. Irion Liberty Legal Foundation (865) 809-1505
Counsel of Record 9040 Executive Park Drive
Suite 200
Knoxville, TN 37923
irionlaw@earthlink.net
Party name: David P. Weldon, et al.

Attorneys for Respondent:
Michael K. Jablonski 2221 Peachtree Rd., NE, Ste. D418 (404) 290-2977
Counsel of Record Atlanta, GA 30309
Party name: Barack H. Obama, President of the United States

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


Image x 3 Image x 21


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am
Posts: 4221
AnitaMaria wrote:
Jablonski has waived Obama's right to respond to Aryan's SCOTUS petition. Birfer tears on the horizon...

Empty chair? 8-)

_________________
@Orly: "No one is listening to you anymore. And that’s the way it should always be." - Scott J. Tepper (11/5/2012)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 5579
Location: You Sue-We Serve Legal Support Services, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96813
This will expedite the case for distribution for the September 24 conference. Expect to see this denied on the Orders list the following day.

_________________
“When I ran the Social Security number through Locate Plus, which is a commercial database that's used by private nvestigators and law enforcement personnel and attorneys, the only person who was associated and affiliated with xxx-xx-4425 was Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.” - sworn testimony of former U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement officer John N. Sampson, January 26, 2012


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23943
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
This will expedite the case for distribution for the September 24 conference. Expect to see this denied on the Orders list the following day.


Dang Obot lawyers knowing what they're talking about. :lol:

Quote:
No. 12-5
Title:
David P. Weldon, et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States
Docketed: July 2, 2012
Lower Ct: Superior Court of Georgia, Fulton County
Case Nos.: (2012CV211527, 2012CV211528, 2012CV211537)
Decision Date: March 2, 2012
Discretionary Court
Decision Date: April 4, 2012

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 28 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2012)
Jul 25 2012 Waiver of right of respondent Barack H. Obama, President of the United States to respond filed.
Aug 8 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


Image x 3 Image x 21


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Posts: 1716
Location: about 26,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy,
Occupation: Chemtrail Scheduling Supervisor, Southwest Division
:-bd Butterfly Bilderberg The Omniscient! =D>

_________________
“I wish I would have a real tragic love affair and get so bummed out that I'd just quit my job and become a bum for a few years, because I was thinking about doing that anyway.”
Jack Handey


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm
Posts: 3938
Location: Brigadoon
Occupation: Retired
Dallasite wrote:
:-bd Butterfly Bilderberg The Omniscient! =D>


Of course, her twin is on the Court. 8-) 8-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 5579
Location: You Sue-We Serve Legal Support Services, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96813
http://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule2012.pdf
:-# :-# :-# :-# :-#

_________________
“When I ran the Social Security number through Locate Plus, which is a commercial database that's used by private nvestigators and law enforcement personnel and attorneys, the only person who was associated and affiliated with xxx-xx-4425 was Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.” - sworn testimony of former U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement officer John N. Sampson, January 26, 2012


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9402
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Irion FAQ (posted Aug. 3):
Quote:
When will the Supreme Court hear our Georgia eligibility case?

Over the next several months the Supreme Court will be reviewing the thousands of cases presented to them, and will decide which cases to accept. Meanwhile, we will be filing an emergency motion asking the Court to intervene before the November election.

Bonus question:
Quote:
Why do you keep taking cases to Court when the Courts are so corrupt?

Our answer to this is also a question, “Why did God continue to send prophets to Israel when He knew they wouldn’t return to His Torah?” The answer is that some will even if most won’t and He never acts without giving warning. We don’t know when we will find an honorable Judge, but we do know that we have to give every Judge the opportunity to uphold the Constitution by making the right arguments to the Court. Obamacare is the prime current example. The attorneys that appeared before the Supreme Court accepted unconstitutional legal precedent as a starting point so they were doomed before they started. We start our arguments by showing the Court how to reverse unconstitutional precedent in order to reach a Constitutional decision.

So: Irion = God?

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9402
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
LLF: SCOTUS to Review Eligibility Case Sept. 24th
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has set a date to review Liberty Legal Foundation’s petition of the Georgia eligibility case. On September 24th the Court will meet to discuss several petitions, including our Georgia eligibility petition. Please see http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... p/12-5.htm.

This is a relatively early date in the Court’s fall cycle for reviewing petitions. We are hoping that this is a sign that the Court has recognized that this issue must be resolved before the November election. Typically the Court announces its decisions regarding acceptance of petitions within a few days after such conferences. So, we should know whether the Court has accepted our petition before the end of September.

The Mr. Obama’s attorney waived his right to respond to our petition. This is not unusual. Often the Court will order opposing attorney to file a response after the opposing attorney has filed a waiver. This has not yet happened in our case.

Some have suggested that the Court’s failure to order the President to respond to LLF’s petition is a sign that the Court has already decided that it will deny our petition. Normally it is true that if the Court is interested in a case it will order the opposing side to file a response to the petition. However, because of the importance of this case it could be that the Court has decided to accept the case without needing to review a response from Mr. Obama. It is also possible that the Court has recognized that ordering a response could delay the case beyond the November election.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 3:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Posts: 11157
Location: FEMA Camp 13 Okanagan, WA 98840
Occupation: Drone Maintenance Officer - FAA Licensed and Certified "We Fix Drones©" Call (206) 622-0460 to schedule routine maintenance or repair.
Eff'in morons... The Fogbow knows what that means when the SC doesn't ask for a brief.

Bye, bye VonMorson. =D> =D> =D>

_________________
Image ImageImage

You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.

Or... you can follow the money...
which nine times out of ten will get you closer to the truth.
"The Two Jakes"


Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 5579
Location: You Sue-We Serve Legal Support Services, 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96813
Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has set a date to review Liberty Legal Foundation’s petition of the Georgia eligibility case. On September 24th the Court will meet to discuss several petitions, including our Georgia eligibility petition. Please see http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... p/12-5.htm.

This is a relatively early date in the Court’s fall cycle for reviewing petitions. We are hoping that this is a sign that the Court has recognized that this issue must be resolved before the November election.


No, it's a sign that the petition made it onto the Summer List of the Case Distribution Schedule before the September 6th cut off.

Idiots.

_________________
“When I ran the Social Security number through Locate Plus, which is a commercial database that's used by private nvestigators and law enforcement personnel and attorneys, the only person who was associated and affiliated with xxx-xx-4425 was Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.” - sworn testimony of former U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement officer John N. Sampson, January 26, 2012


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm
Posts: 7375
Location: Intersection of Godwin Dr. and Poe Blvd.
Occupation: Personal security.
Venn Aryan wrote:
We start our arguments by showing the Court how to reverse unconstitutional precedent ignore reality in order to reach a Constitutional decision we like.

FIFH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Posts: 11157
Location: FEMA Camp 13 Okanagan, WA 98840
Occupation: Drone Maintenance Officer - FAA Licensed and Certified "We Fix Drones©" Call (206) 622-0460 to schedule routine maintenance or repair.
verbalobe wrote:
Venn Aryan wrote:
We start our arguments by showing the Court how to reverse unconstitutional precedent ignore reality in order to reach a Constitutional decision we like.


FIFH


Dunno, I kinda like 'how to reverse constitutional precedent' in order to reach an unconstitutional decision.'

After all that IS what these clowns are asking for. (quick apology to clown worldwide)....

_________________
Image ImageImage

You can follow the action, which gets you good pictures.
You can follow your instincts, which'll probably get you in trouble.

Or... you can follow the money...
which nine times out of ten will get you closer to the truth.
"The Two Jakes"


Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9402
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
OBC: First Two Obama State Ballot Challenges with Undeniable Standing Set for Supreme Court Conference Tomorrow
Quote:
Tomorrow, September 24, the Supreme Court will hold conferences on the first two Obama state ballot eligibility cases that have undeniable standing. If the Supreme Court does not do the right thing and hear the cases on the merits then we pretty much will get a feel if the Supreme Court will continue with their tyranny to allow an ineligible fraudster to continue to destroy the country. The two cases are Judy v. Obama and Weldon v. Obama and they both originated from Georgia. Georgia by the way received permission to build two nuke plants a few days after the decision to allow Obama on the ballot despite proof of birth certificate forgery. See the SCOTUS docket below.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Posts: 7383
Location: Moonbat cave
Occupation: Deputy Minister of Propaganda, TP and PC Divisions
Yeah, I'll bet Pambly could use a feel. :lol: :roll:

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm
Posts: 1452
Yeh good luck with that "Captain" :lol:

_________________
"It’s time for this charade to stop” - Cold Case Posse Member Mike Zullo, destroying Irony Meters worldwide


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group