Replies are closed for this discussion.
It is time to design and execute a Battle Plan, Lock and Load, call Allen West and Colonel Harry Piley and let's get this done. We can't afford to wait now, II would be suspicious of the all the Supreme Court members, at least three members, Ginsberg, Sotomyer and Kagan are against up, maybe the rest that I can see. It is time folks to overhaul the government, let the cards lay where they fall now.
Sorry Colonel Harry Riley, not Piley, no dis-respect to you sir. used the wrong hand while typing.
I agree with you Clois!! Let the cards fall where they may!! Lock and load!!
Did the Georgia Judge simply render a judgment that is wrought with insufficient judicial justification, but one that sufficiently passes the buck on to the appellate courts? A smart Judge or lawyer can sufficiently cloud the issue citing similiar but irrelevant references and cases, as is the Indiana case. It appears the issue there was standing, not the content of the law suit. So, #1, From the court order and the Judge's order, while the expert witnesses may not have been duly submitted as such, judiciously, maybe the argument can be made that the submission would have been made to no one, as no one was there to challenge or affirm their qualifications. Their qualifications were certainly covered by the attorney. The attorney evidently did not say, I submit this witness as an expert witness to the court......which opens the door for the opposing counsol to say ....yea or nay or challenge. But since there was no opposing counsol, who could have objected....no one? Isn't there a legal term for that? The transcript will have to be scrutinized on this point. So, #2, did anybody else notice the "over" use of the word persuasive by the Georgia Judge in his order? I believe that was the trial court Judge's...get off the hot seat verbiage. I believe this trial court determination is appealable on too many issues within a fair and just Judicial Branch of Government. BUT, it would be quite sufficient for a tyrannical branch of government. The ball is now in the Plaintiff's court, with lots of ammunition....pardon the attempted pun.
We know the truth.
Diane, I am also a GBTV member and recommend it highly. He is right on the button and has predicted everything that has happened so far, some as much as 5 years ago. It is only $100 per year for the TV and web membership. He actually has 4 hours of programming each night beginning at 5:00 Eastern time. My wife and I have a ROKU device hooked up to our TV so we can watch Beck while we eat our dinner.
Thanks for the info Bob. I was just going to ask Diane how much the cost is to get Glenn Beck. If you have the info as to where to write or whom to contact. Would appreciate it. -Richard (Dick) Wagener
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this.
Just another example of BHO and Co ruling by threats, exect orders, I belief that this judge was told to lay down and lick them.
Well, Patty, if I understand you correctly, you buy in to the flawed concept that "precedence" takes precedent over our Constitution. A major factor contributing to the deplorable situation we find ourselves in today is law schools teaching that "precedence" is determinative, rather than the Constitution. We have an abortion called a, "Living Constitution" extant in this Country today, rather than THE Constitution which was originally controlling just because of that agenda driven thinking. Wake up, Patty! The game is rigged and it's rigged by the policy of adhering to precedence, not the Constitution.
Georgia Judge Rules Against Plaintiffs:
Attorney Mark Hatfield "taking it up on appeal"
Article II Super PAC Email
As you know we were expecting word out of Georgia today and we got it. Late this afternoon Judge Malihi issued his ruling against all four Plaintiffs.
We caught up with Swensson/Powell's counsel, Mark Hatfield, late this afternoon to get his initial take on the ruling. Here is what he stated “obviously we are disappointed w/the decision, but there are a couple of items in the ruling that we are looking at. First, the Judge never made any ruling on who has the burden of proof even though he indicated in chambers prior to the hearing that making the determination of the burden of proof laid with Defendant Obama." He went onto state "the Judge has a record of placing the burden on the candidate, but didn't do so in this case." Another point Hatfield made was the “Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in Arkeny elevates the Indiana case above the Constitution" while also noting the Judge ignored the Minor court in Minor v Happersett, a ruling that clearly defined natural born Citizen, established precedent. When asked about next steps Hatfield stated "we are going full bore and taking it up on appeal”.
Click this link to read Judge Malihi's ruling - http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html
We will be following this in detail and will keep you abreast of activities as they unfold.
Remember, this isn't a race instead we are running a marathon.
Article II Super PAC
None of that matters now Harry. Courts are making decisions on precedents not the constitution. This was a precedent set based on another precedent. I'm not wasting any more time on this and I suggest others quit wasting their funds on it. Fundraising now appears to be the name of this game.