WELDEN v OBAMA - ACT II - FULTON COUNTY GA SUP. CT. - ACT III SCOGA

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:41 pm

He may not need a sponsor for the federal district court if his office is in the state. As for the Supreme Court of Georgia, I don't know if the PHV rules are the same as for the trial courts. However, candor would require Irion to disclose he was denied PHV status. Irion seems to lack candor, among other qualities found in most attorneys.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

Welsh Dragon wrote:

No in-state attorney, no mention of refusal of PHV, naughty Venn Aryan [-X

No PHV for you

Yet more proof that, for some reason, birther attorneys need not follow the rules (assuming of course that the Supreme Court has to follow the same rules as set by the state, which I would *assume* they would but dunno.

Regardless, Van Aryan did not follow the state rules, yet...

Quote:

March 7, 2012 ATTORNEY - Motion to Participate by Out-of-State Attorney

March 12, 2012 Attorney - Motion by out-of-state attorney to appear granted

mimi · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:28 pm

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

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

realist wrote:

Quote:

March 7, 2012 ATTORNEY - Motion to Participate by Out-of-State Attorney

March 12, 2012 Attorney - Motion by out-of-state attorney to appear granted

Does this then open him up to the potential of disciplinary action?

obot 1024 · **Joined:** Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:25 pm **Posts:** 639

mimi wrote:

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

And just like that a new signature is born....

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

SCOGA Docket Update...

Quote:

Computerized Docketing System and Case Types

Docket Search Results
Case Number: S12D1059
Status: Docketed
Style: Weldon v. Obama
Description: Civil - Discretionary Application - Miscellaneous
Docket Date: March 7, 2012
Calendar: June 2012
Oral Argument Date: **This date is not official until the Court Calendar is transmitted to the parties.
County Location: Fulton
Lower Court Numbers: 2012CV211537

Proceedings
Date Filings & Motions Date Orders
March 7, 2012 Discretionary Application
March 7, 2012 ATTORNEY - Motion to Participate by Out-of-State Attorney March 12, 2012 Attorney - Motion by out-of-state attorney to appear granted
March 7, 2012 Motion for Injunction March 14, 2012 Motion denied

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:46 pm

SCOTUS next.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:26 pm

realist wrote:

March 12, 2012Attorney - Motion by out-of-state attorney to appear granted
March 7, 2012 Motion for Injunction March 14, 2012 Motion denied

It would appear they knew where this one was headed on the 12th. $\:D/$

AnitaMaria · **Joined:** Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm **Posts:** 2120

Venn Aryan has learned to whine from the best in the business: other birfer lawyers. His response to the denial of his motion for an injunction:

Venn Aryan wrote:

Georgia Law Not Enforced Against the Powerful
March 16, 2012
It’s official: the corruption goes all the way to the top of the Georgia judicial branch. This week the Georgia Supreme Court denied our motion for an emergency injunction to delay the certification of the Georgia Democratic Presidential primary election results. Yesterday the Georgia Secretary of State certified Obama as the winner of that election.

There’s an old saying in law: reasonable minds can differ on almost any argument. Our motion for injunction was an exception to the rule. No reasonable, unbiased person would have denied this motion. We were asking for something that wouldn’t have harmed the defendant in any way. Delaying certification of the primary election results for a few weeks would not have changed the outcome of the election and would not have cost a dime. When granting an injunction will harm no one, and denying the motion will arguably destroy the Constitution, what possible reason could be given for denying the motion? Apparently the answer for the Georgia Supreme Court is: None.

More at the link http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1832/ ... ndation%29

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

Venn Aryan wrote:

Georgia Law Not Enforced Against the Powerful
March 16, 2012
Yesterday the Georgia Secretary of State certified Obama as the winner of that election.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:18 pm

BillTheCat wrote:

Venn Aryan wrote:

Georgia Law Not Enforced Against the Powerful
March 16, 2012
Yesterday the Georgia Secretary of State certified Obama as the winner of that election.

Well yes... but...

President Obama was not "elected" to anything yesterday.

mimi · **Posted:** Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:19 pm

Piffle · **Posted:** Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:45 pm

Venn Aryan wrote:

Georgia Law Not Enforced Against the Powerful
March 16, 2012
It’s official: the corruption goes all the way to the top of the Georgia judicial branch. This week the Georgia Supreme Court denied our motion for an emergency injunction to delay the certification of the Georgia Democratic Presidential primary election results. Yesterday the Georgia Secretary of State certified Obama as the winner of that election.

There’s an old saying in law: reasonable minds can differ on almost any argument. Our motion for injunction was an exception to the rule. No reasonable, unbiased person would have denied written this motion. We were asking for something that wouldn’t have harmed the defendant in any way. Delaying certification of the primary election results for a few weeks would not have changed the outcome of the election and would not have cost a dime. When granting an injunction will harm no one, and denying the motion will arguably destroy the Constitution, what possible reason could be given for denying the motion? Apparently the answer for the Georgia Supreme Court is: None.

FIFH. My initial disdain for this clownselor at law has blossomed into full-blown loathing.

If a bogus temporary advisory injunction™ "would not have harmed the defendant in any way", then why is Gauleiter Aryan peeing his pants because the Supremes won't give him one? It's entirely obvious to anyone other than a crazed birther that the objective is to embarrass, delegitimize and belittle the President. No harm there, right?

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:19 pm

And Venn Aryan crashes and burns - DENINED

Quote:

Disposition Date: April 4, 2012
Application denied
All the Justices concur.

http://www.gasupreme.us/docket_search/results_one_record.php?caseNumber=S12D1059

:banana:

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:27 pm

No opposition was filed, so I believe this dimwit has now lost twice to an empty chair in this case.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:28 pm

Can FUBAR be far behind? :lol:

bob · **Posted:** Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:33 pm

Reality Check wrote:

Can FUBAR be far behind? :lol:

What are you talking about? Taitz just said she needed donations for her next trip to Georgia (and places elsewhere).

Suranis · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:04 am **Posts:** 5251

Noooooo!!! This was so unexpected!! My Heart... cant take it... *thud*

Piffle · **Posted:** Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:57 pm

Well done, GA Supremes. Welden indeed! :-bd

I had to check my calendar to verify that today isn't a Friday.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:00 pm

Is Farrar about to be considered (and denied)?

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

Piffle wrote:

Well done, GA Supremes. Welden indeed! :-bd

I had to check my calendar to verify that today isn't a Friday.

thought the same thing - it's been quite a day :mrgreen:

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Wed Apr 04, 2012 3:48 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Is Farrar about to be considered (and denied)?

I suspect that will be a couple of weeks yet - Orly was a bit tardy in filing it so they may not have read it yet.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23571

Van Aryan has not yet informed his minions... no doc yet.

BillTheCat · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1428

realist wrote:

Van Aryan has not yet informed his minions... no doc yet.

Maybe first comes some weepy alone-time.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Apr 04, 2012 7:28 pm

Naah. Irion is still trying to figure out how he can pull the wool over Judge Bolton's eyes by doing some phony service of process on Democrats or Democratic sounding entities now that his Tennessee lawsuit is circling the bowl. He and his client, John Du-may, are probably brainstorming it right now.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

WELDEN v OBAMA - ACT II - FULTON COUNTY GA SUP. CT. - ACT III SCOGA

Who is online