Ohio Ballot Challenge (Susan Daniels)

ZekeB · **Posted:** Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:14 am

Kimba, you didn't strike me as some radical hippie. I was on my good behavior, but you didn't have to be. ;;)

raicha · **Posted:** Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:16 am

I keep thinking this thread is about the Ohio Ballot Challenge.

:-k

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6732

Shouldn't we see something on the docket in the next day or two?

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:34 pm

kimba wrote:

Shouldn't we see something on the docket in the next day or two?

This case is soooo much more important than that other Ohio Obama case.

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4221

Docket update.

Quote:

08/09/2012 CASE SCHEDULED Event: MOTION HEARING - HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Date: 09/04/2012 Time: 9:30 am Judge: FUHRY, DAVID L. Location:

mary · **Posted:** Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:37 am

Drat, Neon, you beat me to it. Barring any unforeseen events, I will be able to attend.

Piffle · **Posted:** Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:15 am

mary wrote:

Drat, Neon, you beat me to it. Barring any unforeseen events, I will be able to attend.

Love having boots on the ground.

fiascoist · **Joined:** Sat Jun 04, 2011 12:42 am **Posts:** 35

Isn't that Oboots.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23928

fiascoist wrote:

Isn't that Oboots.

raicha · **Posted:** Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:07 pm

fiascoist wrote:

Isn't that Oboots.

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2238

From OBC, confirmation of next month's hearing.

Susan Daniels wrote:

I caution against anyone getting too excited about the hearing, because we have seen on dozens of occasions hearings being set and then the lawsuits dismissed. But I am hopeful.

SueDB · **Posted:** Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:28 pm

AnitaMaria wrote:

From OBC, confirmation of next month's hearing.

Susan Daniels wrote:

I caution against anyone getting too excited about the hearing, because we have seen on dozens of occasions hearings being set and then the lawsuits dismissed. But I am hopeful.

Looks like the first SMACKDOWN after Labor day. Susan still can't wear her white shoes.

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6732

Quote:

Susan Daniels wrote:
I caution against anyone getting too excited about the hearing, because we have seen on dozens of occasions hearings being set and then the lawsuits dismissed. But I am hopeful.

Susan Daniels predicts the fate of her own case.

They always get excited just to have gotten a hearing. It's like they think they've advanced the ball toward the goal line or something. First and 10, Do it again!

It looks like the judge is saying, "Well, I've dug through this pile of poo you dropped on my doorstep and I'm not really sure what it is you want since it doesn't conform to anything outlined in the rulz. You can't have a temporary restraining order, but it looks like maybe you're asking for a preliminary injunction, so I'm going to give you a chance to try to splain this to me in person. After Labor Day."

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2238

I wonder if this is a typo or if it is the judge's opinion of the lawsuit:

Judge Fuhry wrote:

The Court finds that the fling fails to satisfy the requirements set forth in the Rules of Civil Procedure in order to entitle the Plaintiff to a temporary restraining order.

SuzieC · **Posted:** Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:50 pm

kimba wrote:

Quote:

Susan Daniels wrote:
I caution against anyone getting too excited about the hearing, because we have seen on dozens of occasions hearings being set and then the lawsuits dismissed. But I am hopeful.

Susan Daniels predicts the fate of her own case.

They always get excited just to have gotten a hearing. It's like they think they've advanced the ball toward the goal line or something. First and 10, Do it again!

It looks like the judge is saying, "Well, I've dug through this pile of poo you dropped on my doorstep and I'm not really sure what it is you want since it doesn't conform to anything outlined in the rulz. You can't have a temporary restraining order, but it looks like maybe you're asking for a preliminary injunction, so I'm going to give you a chance to try to splain this to me in person. After Labor Day."

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

No, answer is due.

Adrianinflorida · **Posted:** Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:03 am

I remember the good old days, when ever hearing held the possibility of being granted the holy Grail of Discovery.... now, it's like their hearts aren't even in it anymore, they almost expect to have their cases dismissed on silly technicalities like 'merit'

bob · **Posted:** Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:34 am

Adrianinflorida wrote:

I remember the good old days, when ever hearing held the possibility of being granted the holy Grail of Discovery.... now, it's like their hearts aren't even in it anymore, they almost expect to have their cases dismissed on silly technicalities like 'merit'

ORYR comment:

Ralph Swain wrote:

I have no confidence in Susan Daniel's case. I hope I'm wrong, but like so many of these suits, my guess is that it will be dismissed faster than you can say, NObama's a crook. Still and all, it's grate antiObama advertising--so it may ultimately help in the election, as Ohio is a battle ground state.

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6732

New Docket Items

Quote:

08/10/2012 ORDER OF THE COURT FILED. (SETTING HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION)
08/10/2012 ORDER FILED. GRANT ROBERT MILLER LEAVE TO PLEAD TILL 09/05/2012

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23928

kimba wrote:

New Docket Items

Quote:

08/10/2012 ORDER OF THE COURT FILED. (SETTING HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION)
08/10/2012 ORDER FILED. GRANT ROBERT MILLER LEAVE TO PLEAD TILL 09/05/2012

I have it on Good Authority that the last entry re Robert Miller is an error in the docket and will be corrected. Therefore, I assume the hearing date previously set remains operative.

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6732

It looks like a couple of AAG's* will rep the SoS also, too. Neither of whom is Robert Miller. :lol:

Still thinking an answer is due.

* Their address is the AG's office.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23928

Not exactly a docket "update" as the entry has already been posted, but a document provided re one of the entries...

Quote:

08/09/2012 MOTION TO DISMISS FILED. Attorney: EPSTEIN, AARON D (0063286)

link shortly

h/t to a friend of Fogbow. :-bd

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:23 pm

realist wrote:

Not exactly a docket "update" as the entry has already been posted, but a document provided re one of the entries...

Quote:

08/09/2012 MOTION TO DISMISS FILED. Attorney: EPSTEIN, AARON D (0063286)

link shortly

h/t to a friend of Fogbow. :-bd

Thank you foF...

It looks like Ms. Daniels should have spent some of her money on chatting with a real lawyer. This case from the beginning is just a waste of time for everyone..
The election is getting closer.....tick,tick,tick go the seconds

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9708

Seriously, I can understand why birfer morons wouldn't redact an SSN, but the State's lawyers?

Fail.

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6732

Nice and to the point.

Quote:

Even if one accepts as true the proposition that President Obama is using a wrongly-acquired social security number, the Complaint never explains how this in any way relates to his eligibility to appear on the ballot.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:48 pm

Disclosure of the SSAN is stoopid but the motion papers are succinct and quite short. Even a lying buffoon like Susan Daniels should be able to understand she's completely fucked.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Ohio Ballot Challenge (Susan Daniels)

Who is online