SueDB wrote:

Dont' you think Jablonski is going to point out the problems with the PHV application and oppose it? His objections were also in his MtD in the original case, IIANM. It should be a part of the record.

I don't think she's going to. She's posted that her PHV was turned down, so Farrarr is going to continue as Pro Se until they get out of Georgia on the Federal side, at which point, she seems expects to be able to step back in and take over as it goes to SCOTUS.

Or he can just go home and enjoy his real life, unless this is the big escape he has been waiting for.

They are not in federal court in GA. They are in state court.

She's actually stated she believes, if the Superior Court affirms the SoS, that she can then appear in the GA Supreme Court.

Ah but isn't this about a federal election? Shouldn't O'rly be is U.S. District Court? Methinks Judge Land will give O'rly pro has dueces, yes?

OH, I thought she was expecting it to go to the appellate court and probably the GA Supreme Court with Farrarr handling it pro se, then when the GA Supremes refused to remove Obama from the ballot, she would re-enter the case and take it to Federal appeals court and then SCOTUS. I, apparently wrongfully, thought that was possible to do (not that Orly would do it right, but that it was, at least, a potential path for a suit challenging a constitutional issue - such as the definition of NBC. Sorry for the confusion.

Just FYI...appeals from a state's Supreme Court (any state) is directly to SCOTUS (no Federal appellate court intermediate step).

Ok, thank you!

Since they are listed alphabetically the case that is #100 is Thompson v Kennedy in Alabama. I protest that Tommy Thompson is too much of a lightweight Birther to have that "honor". How does it sort out chronologically?

Was I asleep during the explanation? I thought Farrar (GA) was DENIED by Malihi and confirmed by the SoS ? Or wasn't that a "Case"?

All of them boloed. Obama stays on the ballot. The SOS went with the Judge with some other comment.

It (like Swensson, et al.) was an administrative hearing, not a court case.

I suspect that is the criteria being used in the Scorecard.

Maybe we need an "Elections Challenge" Scorecard ... NOT that I'm volunteering!

It's at the end of the Birther scorecard. Judicial cases are in the first part, administrative and non-judicial are in the second part.

Ahh .. thanks. I stopped at "Farrar".

Realist, could the thread title be updated to accurately reflect the scorecard?

BIRTHER SCORECARD UPDATED - *109* CASES - 16 PENDING

Quite a few "changes/edits/enhancements"

The number of cases remains the same. For example, the Case String Cite, which was a separate document, is not incorporated into the scorecard.

So, what is the 100th case (by date)

AZ or GA?

Or is it still in the air pending appeals?

It seems that the NY Garvey case crossed the finish line first to be #100 and was follow closely by Allen in Arizona. Am I correct?

Do we have an official "100" yet?

Probably. However, the keeper of the scorecard is unavailable for a few days.