Pennsylvania Ballot Challenge

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:29 pm

Quote:

Document Name: Memo of Law of President Barack Obama in Opposition to Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

Can we assume that is directed at Mario?

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23583

DaveMuckey wrote:

Quote:

Document Name: Memo of Law of President Barack Obama in Opposition to Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice

Can we assume that is directed at Mario?

Yes... docs coming very shortly.

Sequoia32 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:35 pm

Quote:

...it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED. Objector's Petition is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Costs are awarded in favor of Candidate and against Objectors ...

YESSSS!

This is what I want to see from now on in every birther filing - ask for costs every single time.

Edit: I can't wait for Thursday! Between this and Arpaio, March 1, 2012 is gonna be a sad day for birfers. :-bd

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23583

KERCHNER v OBAMA - Letter to Clerk in Opposition of Testimoney via Skype

KERCHNER v OBAMA - Letter to Clerk

KERCHNER v OBAMA - Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Admission pro hac vice

KERCHNER v OBAMA - Motion to Strike and Dismiss

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:46 pm

Wow. This guy is good.

ducktape · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:52 pm

Perfect, to the point, and not a word wasted. And nailing Apuzzo on the "frivolous" - Yes!

(IANAL but IMHO etc...)

Sequoia32 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:58 pm

Besides Ankeny and Ark, now there's Farrar v. Obama and Tisdale v. Obama. LOL!

All their stupid suits are doing is adding nails in the birfer coffin.

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1430

DaveMuckey wrote:

Wow. This guy is good.

No doubt.

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:01 pm

Quote:

Objectors assert that their "expert witness" -whose identity and location objectors fail todisclose -"has a prior commitment requiring his presence

in the state of Az."

It's Corsi - I'd put money on it!

Chilidog · **Joined:** Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:36 pm **Posts:** 1971

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Quote:

Objectors assert that their "expert witness" -whose identity and location objectors fail todisclose -"has a prior commitment requiring his presence

in the state of Az."

It's Corsi - I'd put money on it!

I bet they thought they could get Joe on as well. A two for one deal.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9402

realist wrote:

KERCHNER v OBAMA - Letter to Clerk in Opposition of Testimoney via Skype

KERCHNER v OBAMA - Letter to Clerk

KERCHNER v OBAMA - Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Admission pro hac vice

KERCHNER v OBAMA - Motion to Strike and Dismiss

This guy KICKS ASS!

=D>

mimi · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:11 pm

He mentioned Tisdale in his Motion to Strike and Dismiss.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23583

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Quote:

Objectors assert that their "expert witness" -whose identity and location objectors fail todisclose -"has a prior commitment requiring his presence

in the state of Az."

It's Corsi - I'd put money on it!

Of course it doesn't matter with birferlaw, but it's hard to believe even the Putz wants to put in an "expert" witness without disclosing who he is (and most likely what his testimony is to be). Trial by ambush went out long ago.

Corsi is a good guess based on the date (and/or Shurf Joe) but neither are "expert" in anything but lying bullshit.

mimi · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:12 pm

Schneller is not a newbie to the Courts. meh. nothing much, but a few press releases.

http://www.jim4us.com/pressrelease7%2727%2711.htm

http://www.jim4us.com/pressrelease9%2716%2711.htm

http://www.jim4us.com/pressreleaseprote ... 5%2710.htm

Epectitus · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm **Posts:** 2361

mimi wrote:

He mentioned Tisdale in his Motion to Strike and Dismiss.

RC should bring that to Mario's attention when his pro hac vice is denied.

=))

June bug · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: the Skype request:

realist wrote:

Of course it doesn't matter with birferlaw, but it's hard to believe even the Putz wants to put in an "expert" witness without disclosing who he is (and most likely what his testimony is to be). Trial by ambush went out long ago.

Corsi is a good guess based on the date (and/or Shurf Joe) but neither are "expert" in anything but lying bullshit.

Yet the order denying Skype specifically permits the anonymous "expert" to testify by telephone that day:

Quote:

February 28, 2012 Order Denying Application for Relief 02/28/2012
Per Curiam
Document Name: upon review of Objectors' Motion for Testimony Via Skype and Candidate's Memo of Law in.....
Comment: opposition to motion for testimony via skype the Objectors motion is denied. The Court contacted the
office where Objectors' counsel indicated their expert witness could use a videoconference unit; however,
the unit only provides internal communication within that agency. Further "skyping" is not a practical
alternative in the Courtroom. Objectors' expert witness may participate by telephone provided the
Objectors' counsel provide the Court Crier with the phone number where the expert may be reached prior
to the start of the 3/1/12 hearing at 10:00 a.m. The expert witness may not participate by cell phone.

This would still seem to be trial by ambush. What's the difference between allowing Skype and allowing testimony by telephone?

In looking at the docket I did see a new piece of good news just posted:

Quote:

February 28, 2012 Order Denying Application for Relief 02/28/2012
Per Curiam
Document Name: upon consideration of objectors' motion for audio and video recording, the motion is DENIED.

Judge Mental · **Joined:** Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:29 am **Posts:** 347

realist wrote:

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Quote:

Objectors assert that their "expert witness" -whose identity and location objectors fail todisclose -"has a prior commitment requiring his presence

in the state of Az."

It's Corsi - I'd put money on it!

Of course it doesn't matter with birferlaw, but it's hard to believe even the Putz wants to put in an "expert" witness without disclosing who he is (and most likely what his testimony is to be). Trial by ambush went out long ago.

Corsi is a good guess based on the date (and/or Shurf Joe) but neither are "expert" in anything but lying bullshit.

If it's Corsi the idea might be to have his expert testimony re Obama's father/family given his 'research' for his book "The Obama Nation". If it were and in the highly unlikely event this goes ahead, it would be a good opportunity to ask Corsi on cross why, if he is so adamant that two citizen parents has been very well known and established nbc requirement for a long time, he the expert did not bring it up in his book or say a word about it to anyone at the time (seeing as the freely admitted purpose of the book was to discourage support for Obama's presidential bid and such an 'obvious' eligibility problem would have been a lock).

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:27 pm

Just to remind everyone that Kerchner and Co have file a "list of wetnesses" and "experts reports" so the court may have known who the anonymous expert is before it made its decision on skype.

mimi · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:31 pm

June bug wrote:

In looking at the docket I did see a new piece of good news just posted:

Quote:

February 28, 2012 Order Denying Application for Relief 02/28/2012
Per Curiam
Document Name: upon consideration of objectors' motion for audio and video recording, the motion is DENIED.

What? No Vattelvision? :lol:

I actually have mixed feelings about that. I laughed a lot at the empty chair hearing when Orly moved to the witness chair. =))

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23583

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Just to remind everyone that Kerchner and Co have file a "list of wetnesses" and "experts reports" so the court may have known who the anonymous expert is before it made its decision on skype.

I glossed over the "expert reports" portion of that entry. :oops:

Then we should know, oh, in the next 12-18 hours hopefully.

June bug · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:36 pm

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Just to remind everyone that Kerchner and Co have file a "list of wetnesses" and "experts reports" so the court may have known who the anonymous expert is before it made its decision on skype.

Thanks for the reminder, WD. #-o

I should have paid more attention to that entry on the docket, but I always count on realist to be perfect so I don't have to be!

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23583

June bug wrote:

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Just to remind everyone that Kerchner and Co have file a "list of wetnesses" and "experts reports" so the court may have known who the anonymous expert is before it made its decision on skype.

Thanks for the reminder, WD. #-o

I should have paid more attention to that entry on the docket, but I always count on realist to be perfect so I don't have to be!

That could get you in big trouble. :lol:

SueDB · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:44 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

This guy KICKS ASS!

=D>

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

It looks like "someone" is in for a severe ass kicking.

June bug · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:50 pm

SueDB wrote:

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

This guy KICKS ASS!

=D>

^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

It looks like "someone" is in for a severe ass kicking.

From your lips to doG's ears!

Maru · **Posted:** Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:54 pm

June bug wrote:

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Just to remind everyone that Kerchner and Co have file a "list of wetnesses" and "experts reports" so the court may have known who the anonymous expert is before it made its decision on skype.

Thanks for the reminder, WD. #-o

I should have paid more attention to that entry on the docket, but I always count on realist to be perfect so I don't have to be!

. I do the exact same thing.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Pennsylvania Ballot Challenge

Who is online