Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 565 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 23  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19942
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
Raicha - it's sekrit. Or it's in the questioning of the Kreep and the Chaleria. "Dicta" means what is said in oral argument, apparently. The "holding" is any word fragment in an opinion that you can contort into aiding your position, no matter how ridiculous the contortion.

Orlylaw and Vanirionlaw 101A.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm
Posts: 1941
Location: Unfortunately, deep in the Bible Belt
realist wrote:



](*,)

And John Dummett has some quality folks working on his campaign. Making it a sure winner.

Quote:
Florence Stone · Top Commenter · U.C.C
Thomas, I have followed your posts on FB, and shared a lot of them. Feel like I know you. I am on John's Dummett's campaign. You should join http://www.johndummett.us/volunteer.html I can't tell you how great it feels to actually be DOING something about Obama, instead of just talking about it. It is GREAT to be a part of history, bringing this bunch of evil crooks down!!
:lol:


If you look at John super slim resume, the closest he's ever been to a leadersip position was as a Boy Scouts Wee Belo leader back in 1983. I'm sure that will come in handy when he's face to face with some world leader. Maybe John could challenge him/her to see who can build the best fort using popsicle sticks.

If nothing else, John truly represents the birthers -- sets low standards and fails to achieve them.

_________________
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:25 pm
Posts: 636
majorbabs wrote:
If you look at John super slim resume, the closest he's ever been to a leadersip position was as a Boy Scouts Wee Belo leader back in 1983. I'm sure that will come in handy when he's face to face with some world leader. Maybe John could challenge him/her to see who can build the best fort using popsicle sticks.

If nothing else, John truly represents the birthers -- sets low standards and fails to achieve them.


Webelos are not Boy Scouts. They are a bridge between cub scouts & boy scouts for 4th & 5th graders.

http://www.boyscouttrail.com/webelos/webelos-scouts.asp

_________________
"Yeah, these are the guys who will take down the President. Two old dudes, one in his underwear, yammering about internet screen names under the roar of a Texas swamp cooler." - raicha

"idunno why anybody is worried about Sharia Law creeping into our judicial system. They should be worried about Orly Law." - mimi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19942
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
Hold on! Florence Stone is supporting Dummett? Doesn't she know that the Chaleria has completely dissed this buffoon?

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am
Posts: 4216
majorbabs wrote:
...


http://www.johndummett.us/platform.html

Quote:
For the spiritual health of our nation—and for its ultimate survival—God will not be divorced from State or Federal government. This nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, and Americans have a God-given right to worship the way they see fit without any interference of any governmental authority.
(snip)
Parents have the right to discipline their children and will have the right to determine what is morally correct.

Oh, like this, John?
Quote:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

[-(

_________________
@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: Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 3977
Location: Southwest of down east
Quote:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21


Yikes, neon, that's really old-fashion, isn't it?

But hey! you gotta admit that if more fathers took their stubborn and rebellious sons to get stoned, we'd a better country here.

And it's a quick and reliable solution -- one good stoning and the problem is permanently solved. Until Number Two Son starts acting up, that is.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
(redirecting discussion)

ORYR: Liberty Legal Foundation Responds to Unnecessary Criticism of Their Eligibility Lawsuit by Attorney Orly Taitz


So all 250 candidates who have registered with the FEC will automatically be on every state's ballot?

Is that your final answer, Irion?

_________________
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: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:42 pm
Posts: 3370
Location: The 808
Occupation: World-class procrastinator and perpetual late-bloomer.
bob wrote:
(redirecting discussion)

ORYR: Liberty Legal Foundation Responds to Unnecessary Criticism of Their Eligibility Lawsuit by Attorney Orly Taitz


So all 250 candidates who have registered with the FEC will automatically be on every state's ballot?

Is that your final answer, Irion?


From the above-linked ORYR post:
Quote:
Second, she mistakenly assumes that standing requires a plaintiff to be in exactly the same position as a defendant. In this case she claims that only a candidate on the ballot in the general election will have standing. This is simply wrong. Standing requires a plaintiff to show that they will be harmed, in a particular way that is not speculative. Any candidate running in the election will be less likely to win if their opponent appears on the ballot. This is true whether the plaintiff appears on the ballot or not. This harm is not speculative, it is certain. She mistakenly equates the speculative nature of winning an election with the certain nature of the harm. The harm of lowering a candidates chances of winning is certain. Courts cannot simply conclude that a candidate has no chance of winning without throwing out the entire purpose of holding democratic elections.

Third, Orly assumes that standing can be disproven simply because many plaintiffs have standing. This is also wrong. Standing is proven if a plaintiff can show that he will be harmed. This analysis doesn’t require the harm to be limited to a small number of people. Courts don’t like standing that any citizen can assert, but 250 FEC-registered Presidential candidates is not the same as 330 million American taxpayers. By Orly’s argument, her military members didn’t have standing because there are “too many” members of the military. Such an argument runs contrary to her own assertions.
[...]
I’ve respected her work on this issue to date. We certainly learned a lot from her valiant efforts. I am disappointed that she choose to defame our efforts rather than discuss her concerns with us directly. All of our legal filings are posted on our website. Our strategy is outlined clearly. Please go to www.libertylegalfoundation.net and decide for yourself if you believe our cases have merit.


Why am I wondering if this nimrod bothered to read the decisions that were issued in Orly's various defeats?

_________________
"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: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 5755
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Mikedunford wrote:
Why am I wondering if this nimrod bothered to read the decisions that were issued in Orly's various defeats?


But of course! They have even read the dicta in a 9th Circuit case decision that hasn't been written yet!

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am
Posts: 5248
They've got him now guys

Image

_________________
You cannot kill what has no life...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm
Posts: 1941
Location: Unfortunately, deep in the Bible Belt
obot 1024 wrote:
majorbabs wrote:
If you look at John super slim resume, the closest he's ever been to a leadersip position was as a Boy Scouts Wee Belo leader back in 1983. I'm sure that will come in handy when he's face to face with some world leader. Maybe John could challenge him/her to see who can build the best fort using popsicle sticks.

If nothing else, John truly represents the birthers -- sets low standards and fails to achieve them.


Webelos are not Boy Scouts. They are a bridge between cub scouts & boy scouts for 4th & 5th graders.

http://www.boyscouttrail.com/webelos/webelos-scouts.asp


I know that but apparently John doesn't because the comment -- "Boy Scouts Wee Belo leader" comes, as written, directly from John's website. You would think that a leader would at least know how to correctly spell "webelos".

And speaking of John, I just checked the New Hampshire Primary website. Today was the deadline for filling paperwork to be placed on the primary ballot. John's name seems to be missing. New Hampshire Primary I'm sure it was just an oversite on his campaign manager's part. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

_________________
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm
Posts: 1941
Location: Unfortunately, deep in the Bible Belt
bob wrote:
(redirecting discussion)

ORYR: Liberty Legal Foundation Responds to Unnecessary Criticism of Their Eligibility Lawsuit by Attorney Orly Taitz


So all250 candidateswho have registered with the FEC will automatically be on every state's ballot?

Is that your final answer, Irion?


I've only looked at a handful of states, but the ones I've looked at are consistent as to how someone gets on the state's ballot for president -- it will the party's nominated candidate for president. I guess 249 folks are going to be sorely disappointed.

_________________
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 5755
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
majorbabs wrote:
bob wrote:
(redirecting discussion)

ORYR: Liberty Legal Foundation Responds to Unnecessary Criticism of Their Eligibility Lawsuit by Attorney Orly Taitz


So all250 candidateswho have registered with the FEC will automatically be on every state's ballot?

Is that your final answer, Irion?


I've only looked at a handful of states, but the ones I've looked at are consistent as to how someone gets on the state's ballot for president -- it will the party's nominated candidate for president. I guess 249 folks are going to be sorely disappointed.


And that's where their argument becomes completely idiotic:

Quote:
Standing requires a plaintiff to show that they will be harmed, in a particular way that is not speculative. Any candidate running in the election will be less likely to win if their opponent appears on the ballot. This is true whether the plaintiff appears on the ballot or not. This harm is not speculative, it is certain. She mistakenly equates the speculative nature of winning an election with the certain nature of the harm. The harm of lowering a candidates chances of winning is certain. Courts cannot simply conclude that a candidate has no chance of winning without throwing out the entire purpose of holding democratic elections.


If the plaintiff/candidate does not appear on the ballot, the chances of winning are ZERO percent. It is not possible to lower the chances of winning below zero percent. It is not possible to harm someone by lowering their chances to win if the chance is already zero percent.

The harm is not certain. The harm is not speculative. The harm is non-existent unless the plaintiff/candidate is qualified to appear on a ballot, thus creating a chance of winning above ZERO.

](*,)

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 9356
raicha wrote:
If the plaintiff/candidate does not appear on the ballot, the chances of winning are ZERO percent. It is not possible to lower the chances of winning below zero percent. It is not possible to harm someone by lowering their chances to win if the chance is already zero percent.

The harm is not certain. The harm is not speculative. The harm is non-existent unless the plaintiff/candidate is qualified to appear on a ballot, thus creating a chance of winning above ZERO.

](*,)


That is the case only if write-in votes are absolutely prohibited.

I'm also not talking strictly theoretically. I lived in York, Pennsylvania, when Mayor Charlie Robertson was running for reelection. It came out during his campaign that he had been a police officer during race riots in 1969 in that city, and had handed out bullets to vigilantes and white supremacists, telling them to "kill as many niggers as you can" and stating that if he were not a police officer, he would personally be leading "commando raids" to assist in white supremacist violence. White rioters, perhaps armed with his bullets, later shot and murdered Lillie Belle Allen, who mistakenly wandered into an area of violence. There were also white victims of violence during the riots, discussed here.

A popular primary challenger, Ray Crenshaw, came in second in the primary election. He "happened to be black." Robertson lied about the likelihood of his indictment for murder, the only charge he still faced for his white supremacist violence decades later. Only after coming in first in the primary did he finally admit he was likely to be indicted for murder. In any reasonable situation, they would have run a second primary or given the spot to the guy who came in second place. Of course, he "happened to be black" in a pretty racist area of Pennsylvania.

The local Democratic Party simply bypassed democracy, literally, since the city of York would never elect a Republican. Had the racist white supremacist Charlie Robertson not lied about his nearly inevitable indictment for murder, a rap he beat, Crenshaw would almost certainly have been the nominee. Instead, the local Democratic Party picked John Brenner, who subsequently won the election. I will note that I have nothing whatsoever against Brenner, who turned out to be a perfectly good mayor, and as far as I know, he had nothing to do with the racist decision to bypass the voters and basically appoint him mayor. Nevertheless, if democracy had prevailed, Ray Crenshaw would have been mayor.

However, Crenshaw subsequently ran on a write-in campaign. After being excluded from the ballot, he won over 20% of the vote (including mine). The Democratic Party did everything imaginable to discourage any attempt to write him in and to drive away anyone attempting to explain the write-in process, on outmoded lever machines from the 19th century used in the city, especially in the precincts likely to favor a write-in candidate. To write him in required using an incredibly arcane process it is difficult to imagine most people could understand without explanation. In fact, I, someone who considers myself to have a pretty good grasp of electoral procedures, took a few minutes to grasp exactly how to do a write-in on one of these antiquated machines.

I am therefore highly reluctant simply to rule out someone as having standing to challenge an election based on some notion that if they aren't on the ballot, they are absolutely never going to win and aren't a legitimate candidate. This is a process used by the two major parties to make a literal joke out of the idea of democracy.

I am not supporting this particular lawsuit, which has so many problems and is frivolous in so many ways that have already been detailed that there is no need to recount them. I am just giving a particular example from my own life that causes me to contest, strongly, the idea that simply not being on the ballot means one shouldn't have standing to raise any challenge to what is on the ballot.

_________________
L—d! said my mother, what is all this story about? — A Cock and a Bull, said Yorick — And one of the best of its kind I ever heard. -- Sterne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Posts: 4917
Location: Glocca Morra
raicha wrote:

If the plaintiff/candidate does not appear on the ballot, the chances of winning are ZERO percent.


Senator Lisa Murkowski may disagree with that. :o

_________________
"What's it like being an atheist? It's like being the only sober person in a car full of drunks, and they refuse to let you drive." Thomas Jefferson

Birtherism is so ridiculous that I no longer feel obligated to treat proponents w/slightest degree of respect or civility


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
majorbabs wrote:
I've only looked at a handful of states, but the ones I've looked at are consistent as to how someone gets on the state's ballot for president -- it will the party's nominated candidate for president. I guess 249 folks are going to be sorely disappointed.

Even for the primaries, it requires more than filing with FEC.

For example, in California, the Secretary of State (damn you Soros and Dunn!) determines who is a real candidate for the primaries. (This is not an exclusive method; one can also collect signatures.)

This all will be more fully explained in the NDC's DNC's motion to dismiss.

_________________
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 Oct 29, 2011 3:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
It gets worse:
Quote:
from Chris Strunk, author of a number of eligibility and elections law suits

You summed it up VERY well in your article. . . .

WASTE OF TIME! Whoever the attorney is NOT properly advising the clients.

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=26980

When freakin' Strunk thinks your case is a looser, you know it is bad.

_________________
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 Oct 29, 2011 3:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Quote:
Very important, more clarifications on lack of registration on the ballot of John Dummett and related issues

It is important to clarify all the points, so that the patriots of this country understand, what is going on and not waste time and limited resources.

The case is filed against DNC. Some people mistakingly believe, that when a case is filed between private parties, there is no need to show standing. That is not the case. The courts always demand standing or else the courts will be paralyzed with avalanche of cases.

I worked on eligibility for 3 years. Standing is always required. The judge will look at the case and will state: what connection does Liberty foundation, John Dummett and anyone else have to DNC? The judge will probably rule, that during the Democrat primary there is no connection or controversy between DNC and a minor Republican candidate John Dummett, who simply filled out a form, saying that he wants to run for President, but so far he is not on the ballot and did not get any votes. The judge most likely will rule, that there is no connection or controversy during the primary, and it is clear that John Dummet will not be a Republican nominee running against Obama in the general election.

[...]

If the judge did not certify the case as a “class action law suit”, than each and every plaintiff needs to show standing. Van Irion is writing, that if one member of the class has standing, than the whole class has standing. Again, there was no ruling by any judge granting Van Irion class action determination, so this is really misrepresentation. Additionally, even if a class was created, individuals, who want to join the class have to show, that they have a particular injury.

[...]

I saw a headline in WND today, saying that Obama 2012 election might be a no go. I thought, that something of real substance happened. When I scrolled down the article, I saw that it was this case with a lead plaintiff, who is a Republican candidate, who is not even on the ballot, suing DNC during the Democrat primary, in class action, when the class certification was not given. Is WND really believing that Obama Presidency for 2012 is a no go because of that, or is it a joke or is WND trying to steer in the wrong direction? Clearly WND could do the same basic research, that I did. They could plainly see, that John Dummet is not even on the ballot, that certification was never given . They could check with attorneys and experts, who would tell WND, that most likely the courts will find no standing for a Republican candidate to sue DNC during the Democrat primary.

I am really questioning, what is the motivation of Joseph Farah, chief editor of WND? In August he organized a cruise, where he promoted Gary Kreep,as a lead attorney on eligibility, even though Kreep did very little on the issue and Gary Kreep together with Philip Berg are harassing me, invertigator Neil Sankey and all the database companies with the most despicable frivolous law suit. A large number of my supporters wrote to Joseph Farah telling him, that he needs to stop promoting Kreep and needs to expose to the public, what Kreep does. In his response to one of my supporters, Alex Gofen, Joseph Farah stated that he does not care and he will not drop a paying advertiser Gary Kreep. At the same time WND did not write a word about my hearing in Hawaii, where the deputy attorney general of Hawaii and Director of Health were cornered by me and where the next hearing date is scheduled for November 30th. I believe, that Joseph Farah and WND owe the public a clarification, as to what is going on. Is Van Irion a paid advertiser like Gary Kreep? Is that the reason, why WND came up with this screaming headline “Obama 2012 campaign is a no go “. Is the fact, that I am not a paying advertiser, a reason, why there was nothing written by WND about the court hearing, that I had in HI on September 14, even though FOX news was there and it was a story #1 on FOX HI that day? I believe, that members of the public are entitled to know, what is going on, what are the real motivations and they can make their own conclusions.

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=26977

_________________
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 Oct 29, 2011 4:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Posts: 5179
Location: Belize City
Occupation: Visiting doctors.
Quote:
but 250 FEC-registered Presidential candidates


Huh? Don't they have to be on ballots? CA requires 160K signatures. From a 2007 article:

Quote:
“You are not a candidate until you are on the ballot,” said ballot access expert Laureen Oliver, an advisor to Texas independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman last year and New York Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Golisano in 2002.

:::snip:::snap:::

Q. How much would it cost to get on the ballot in all 50 states?
A. According to Winger [Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News], a candidate would need a total of about 700,000 signatures nationwide. “If the bulk of the work were done in 2007, when paid circulators don’t have much work so they charge less, it could be done for $2.5 million.”


Just wondering how much $$$ it costs to tilt at windmills.

Cross-posted from Orly's Poopies cuz I had a bad case of deja vu.

_________________
If a bunch of religious nuts can vote away your fundamental civil rights, then your rights are not self-evident, inalienable, or endowed by God. Quod erat demonstrandum. -- Stonekettle Station
ImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23548
So Orly still haz a madz about not being invited on the birfer cruise. :lol:

Now she goes on an all-out jihad against LLF and van Irion. :-bd

And while in her "legal analysis" she gets some things semi correct, the real motiviation for her has nothing to do with the case, it's really about how dare they try to usurp my position as queen of da birfers.

It's really all about ME! ME! ME!!!

And damn well better remain so.

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


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 12876
Location: location, location
Occupation: Ruler of the Intarwebz
Orly's gonna have to step up her game a notch. Used to think she couldn't get any crazier; learned otherwise.

This is gonna be fun to watch.


_________________
... then one day I found some birthers on my planet. Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19942
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
The Chaleria should intervene into the case. Maybe drag along a few of her "plaintiffs" from other cases.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 3977
Location: Southwest of down east
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
The Chaleria should intervene into the case. Maybe drag along a few of her "plaintiffs" from other cases.


Definitely. Not to mention the unparalleled battery of experts she's put together.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 9165
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Quote:
Bo Latham wrote:
Just a thought here…according to the 2009 Talking points memo…”State election officials under some state ballot laws might thus require candidate “statements” or “declarations” of candidacy attesting to and/or certifying certain facts as a condition to be on the ballot; in other states,representatives of the established political parties may certify names to the Secretary of State, or the designated elections official may place viable or “recognized” candidates on the presidential preference ballots. In such cases opposing political candidates or political parties may have “standing ” to legally challenge the placement of a name of an opponent on the ballot, or state law may specifically provide for a procedure for timely protests to be filed concerning the qualifications of candidates.”…would this rule out Drummet on standing? This is suggesting that he may have standing to challenge obama being put on the ballot. Or am I wrong?

Taitz wrote:
you are wrong, as they are not suing the state or secretary of state, they are suing DNC. Additionally, even if they were suing states, so far Dummitt is nobody and nothing in any state, as he is not registered as a candidatate in any state, not even in the first primary state of New Hampshire. Even if he were to pay some $5,000 registration fee, he still would have no standing in challenging DNC, as he is not running in the Democrat primary

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=26948#comments

_________________
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 Oct 29, 2011 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 5755
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Perhaps I should clarify my perspective on what it means to qualify for the ballot. Because of my California perspective, I spoke in overbroad terms.

Here in Cali, write-in votes won't even be counted unless the candidate has qualified as a write-in candidate.

What I am trying to say is this: if there is no way that a single vote for you will be counted, then you cannot be "harmed" by the presence of other candidates in the race.

At this point in time, none of the 250 "FEC" candidates are in a position to receive a single vote in California or, to my knowledge, any other state in the Union.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 565 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 23  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


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