T1B

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:01 am**

88, Jsc...

Did you forgot to invite Moving Sale?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:32 am**

you're obsessing, fatboy.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 2:03 am**

What type of inbred dipshit types in all caps?

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:35 am**

I would laugh my fucking ass off, if NoseBone Obluegums got pulled from the ballot in Georgia. Just think of all the nigggers in "Hotlanta" who would be dissemuhfranchised. What would make it even funnier is all the dumbfucks in states like California who passed laws mandating that the winner of the popular vote gets those states' electoral votes.

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:52 am**

88 wrote:Seems like a case that cries out for an extraordinary writ rather than a letter to the Secretary of State and a "fuck you" to the ALJ.

As you might have guessed, Georgia's SOS wasn't particularly impressed by Obongo's "letter."

Michael Jablonski
260 Brighton Road, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
michael.jablonski@comcast.com

RE: Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Hearings

Dear Mr. Jablonski:

I received your letter expressing your concerns with the manner in which the Office of State Administrative Hearings ("OSAH") has handled the candidate challenges involving your client and advising me that you and your client will "suspend" participation in the administrative proceeding. While I regret that you do not feel that the proceedings are appropriate, my referral of this matter to an administrative law judge at OSAH was in keeping with Georgia law, and specifically O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5.

As you are aware, OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.17 cited in your letter only applies to parties to a hearing. As the referring agency, the Secretary of State's Office is not a party to the candidate challenge hearings scheduled for tomorrow. To the extent a request to withdraw the case referral is procedurally available, I do not believe such a request would be judicious given the hearing is set for tomorrow morning.

In following the procedures set forth in the Georgia Election Code, I expect the administrative law judge to report his findings to me after his full consideration of the evidence and law. Upon receipt of the report, I will fully and fairly review the entire record and initial decision of the administrative law judge. Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.

I certainly appreciate you contacting me about your concerns, and thank you for your attention to this
matter.

Sincerely,
Brian P. Kemp
Georgia Secretary of State

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:59 am**

Why doesn't that dude drop a contempt charge? If he's seeking some publicity....that oughta do it.

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:42 am**

Hmmm. Let's see if I've got this straight here, a couple weeks ago when Newt suggested that, under certain extraordinary circumstances, he might consider ignoring a court ruling, your eyes bugged, you snapped off whoever's cock was in your ass at the time and rushed in here to register your apoplectic fury at the idea that such an outrage could even be suggested.

Fast forward a couple weeks and now Ocockslit has done more than merely consider ingoring a court ruling, he has actually done so and he did it without even the bad excuse of some extraordinary emergency. He did it over a completely mundane administrative matter that could be easily cleared up in a half hour....unless, of course, the merits of the case aren't nearly as flimsy as you seem to believe.

In any event, he did blow off the courts and here you are cheering him on with nothing more than ad hominems and bullshit. You are a very obvious and pathetically stupid hypocrite.

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:51 am**

The world would be a far better place is all unwanted subpoenas
were simply tossed in the trash.

And team Barry went above and beyond by taking time out
of busy schedules to send a letter politely explaining that this
matter has already been resolved, thank you very much.

That's courtesy and that is taking care of business.

It's what's needed in the White House and this seals it for me.

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:51 am**

I believe the Judge wants briefs by Super Bowl Sunday. Actually looking forward to the ruling. Has plaintiff met the burden of proof required for a win? Leads to the question that perhaps the hearing as presented hasn't led the judicial officer to rule against POTUS, just yet...?

Posted: **Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:23 am**

mvscal wrote:Hmmm. Let's see if I've got this straight here, a couple weeks ago when [Fatty McChinjizz] suggested that, under certain extraordinary circumstances, he might consider ignoring a court ruling...

You are a lying Racist POS.

"I will issue an instruction on the opening day, first day I'm sworn in, I will issue an executive order to the national security apparatus that it will not enforce Boumediene and it will regard it as null and void because it is an absurd extension of the supreme court in to the commander in chief's (authority)."

Fast forward a couple weeks and now [President Obama] has done more than merely consider ingoring a court ruling, he has actually done so ...

You stupid black cock sucking trog, there is a huge difference between ignoring a subpoena issued by a Georgia State Administrative Law Judge when you live in DC and refusing to enforce a USSC ruling made by five Justices.

Have you EVER been right about ANYTHING?

Posted: **Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:26 pm**

Oily Taint needs to be disbarred. That is all.

Posted: **Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:35 am**

88 wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:Pretty sure the President's attorney has this stupid shit under control.
What happens if the Georgia agency determines that Obama's name cannot appear on the ballot? What is his lawyer, who has everything under control, going to do? Go to federal court and argue that a matter of state law was wrongly decided by a state tribunal, which Obama's own attorneys had an opportunity to participate in but chose not to do so? Maybe he can get a state court to overrule the agency. But it is generally difficult to file a civil action against a state agency when you were served with papers and provide due notice of a state court proceeding. Why not participate and appeal from any adverse decision? You need to explain to me how Obama's lawyer has this under control.

So you think the state of Georgia wants to be looked upon much as educated folks view Orly Taitz? Good luck with that.

Posted: **Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:38 am**

Orly

Posted: **Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:45 am**

88 wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:So you think the state of Georgia wants to be looked upon much as educated folks view Orly Taitz? Good luck with that.
Obama's crack legal team didn't give the State of Georgia many options, did it? But I think you have a point. If the judge weighs the evidence produced by Obama's legal team that establishes his eligibility to be listed on the ballot (I'll go ahead and put all of it between these two brackets [ ]) against the evidence produced by the wackos during the hearing that there are reasons to doubt whether the candidate is a U.S. citizen, and based on that evidence recommends that the candidate should not appear on the ballot, the Obama team will not pursue direct legal remedies (which they've already take a pass on) but rather will attack the judge and anyone affiliated with the ruling as a crackpot, liar, racist, nutjob, biased, bigot etc.

if the judge is a Hannity-fellating tard and takes the bait, it will make the stupid people in the gop cream their shorts. that could be a benefit for obama with moderates, but it could also mean more gop crazy people actually leave their trailers and hold back the vomit as they vote for Romney. it would be best for obama to let those people stay at home.

Posted: **Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:54 pm**

Scoreboard rules.......

Posted: **Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:07 am**

88 wrote:That sounds like it must have been a serious goat-fuck of a hearing. I wonder whether Obama's crack legal team would have handled it differently if the attorney representing the petitioners actually knew how to practice law?

Probably not. They would have to prove that either Obluegums wasn't born in Hawaii or that he isn't a natural born citizen because his father wasn't a citizen. It's a tough row to hoe even if you aren't a tard.

Posted: **Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:26 pm**

88 wrote:
mvscal wrote:
88 wrote:That sounds like it must have been a serious goat-fuck of a hearing. I wonder whether Obama's crack legal team would have handled it differently if the attorney representing the petitioners actually knew how to practice law?
Probably not. They would have to prove that either Obluegums wasn't born in Hawaii or that he isn't a natural born citizen because his father wasn't a citizen. It's a tough row to hoe even if you aren't a tard.
True. But in reading the decision, it is my impression that the judge did not give any weight to the opinions provided by the witnesses primarily because the attorney didn't take the steps necessary to establish that the witnesses were experts on the subject matter of their testimony. This is accomplished by having a witness explain his/her educational background, experience, licensure, etc. in order to establish a foundation that the witness is an expert in the particular field, and that the court should give credibility to the testimony provided. I gather that nothing of this sort occurred. And that might be because the witnesses are not experts. But it sounds more like bad lawyering.

If there truly was something fishy about the Social Security Number or the image of the birth certificate, I suspect that there wouldn't be too much difficulty properly qualifying someone as an expert in the respective fields and then asking their opinions regarding the reliability of the papers submitted by the candidate. Questioned document experts are presented at trials all the time.

The worst part of that was that Oily Taint apparently didn't even try to qualify her "experts." Or if she did, she didn't have even the foggiest clue how to go about doing it.

But even that pales in comparison to another mistake. As the judge pointed out, she wanted a decision on the merits even when she was entitled to a default judgment. When you're sitting on a default judgment, take it and run, especially when the merits of your case are as weak as they were here.

A default judgment can't be appealed; rather, the defaulting party has to move to vacate the default judgment, and his right to appeal exists if that motion is denied. Had a default judgment been entered, that would have knocked Obama off the ballot in Georgia, unless his lawyer filed a Motion to vacate the default Judgment. That usually requires two things -- justifiable excuse for the default, and some likelihood of success on the merits. I think Obama could have fulfilled the second requirement, but he would have had a very difficult time with the first requirement (parenthetically, many default judgments are in exactly the reverse situation. Often, default judgments are consumer credit transactions where the creditor engaged in "sewer service." In that case, the debtor has a justifiable excuse for the default, but often can't meet the requirement of some likelihood of success on the merits.) In any event, Obama's attorney would, in the best-case scenario, have had egg on his face. In the worst case scenario, Obama is off the ballot. And given that Georgia is considered in play for Obama according to a recent Gallup poll, that would have been potentially disastrous for him.

Posted: **Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:37 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:(parenthetically,)

Van, your thoughts?

Posted: **Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:44 pm**

poptart wrote:The world would be a far better place is all unwanted subpoenas
were simply tossed in the trash.

And there are "wanted" subpoenas ?

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:03 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:
Derron wrote:And there are "wanted" subpoenas ?
Oh yeah, sure there are wanted subpoenas.

Consider a witness who is willing to testify, but doesn't want others to know that he is willing. A subpoena allows him the "excuse" that he had no choice, he was forced to do it. I've been such a witness myself, and have had such witnesses at trials.

It also allows a witness who wants to testify to get off work for a day. Many employers won't allow them to take time off from work without a subpoena.

Posted: **Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:52 am**

Read most of this.

Here's a scary thought: Obama's birth certificate shows that he is NOT a US citizen. He is removed from office immediately, which means.................

President Joseph Biden.

HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted: **Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:07 am**

If Barry is illegitimate, Biden is also, isn't he?

T1B

88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.

Re: 88 or Jsc or both.