Things could get interesting...
Dare we hope?
What the effin difference does it make now? He’s relected and we r stuck this disgusting POS for 4 more years. The way to have forced this issue was for a state - any state, to have passed legislation requiring anyone running on any ballot in any race in that state to provide proof of eligibility to appear on the ballot.
Well WTF does Feinstein have to do with it?
“’What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make’ “
.
California Judge Does The Unthinkable: Reinstates 0hbama Eligibility Lawsuit
Ping.
.
My weird fantasy is that this suit will play out favorably, and then ALL laws and EO’s by Obama will be vacated —poof...!
^_^
Things could get interesting...
The headline is wrong. The suit was not reinstated.
The trial judge dismissed the suit on a number of grounds, most prominently that plaintiff Orly Taitz never served it on any of the defendants. Orly appealed. The appeal was dismissed because Orly never filled out the paperwork necessary to file the appeal. Orly asked the Court of Appeal to reinstate her appeal. The court gave her more time to file the appeal paperwork.
If Orly gets the paperwork right the second time, the appeal will be reinstated. The underlying lawsuit will not be reinstated unless Orly goes on to win the appeal, which will be hard to do when she never served any of the defendants.
Order Filed: On January 15, 2013, this court filed an order dismissing the instant appeal because of appellant's failure to designate the record on appeal and for failure to file a Civil Case Information Statement, after notice that appellant was in default. On January 24, 2013, appellant filed a motion to reinstate the appeal. The motion is DENIED without prejudice. The motion is defective for the following reasons, among others: 1) The motion purports to include appellant's notice designating the record on appeal but the notice is internally inconsistent in that appellant has failed to indicate which of the alternative methods she elects to use for the record on appeal. Instead, appellant has checked each of the three alternative forms: a clerk's transcript under rule 8.122, an appendix under rule 8.124 and the original superior court file under rule 8.128. Much of the remainder of the document, which consists of handwritten notations, is illegible. 2) The motion purports to include appellant's Case Information Statement, but the Case Information Statement is incomplete. Appellant has failed to complete section A regarding Appealability, section C regarding Bankruptcy or Other Stay, and section E regarding Service Requirements. 3) Appellant's motion to reinstate the appeal does not contain a proper proof of service. The clerk of this court is directed to include with this order a copy of Judicial Council Form APP-009-INFO "Information Sheet for Proof of Service (Court of Appeal)." Specifically, appellant's proof of service by mail on all court documents must include a statement, made under penalty of perjury, by the person doing the serving (who is not a party). Among other requirements, the proof of service also must state the name of the document being served, the server's home or business address, and the city and state from which the document is being mailed. Appellant is advised that this dismissal will become final as to this court on February 14, 2013, at which time this court will lose the power to vacate, reconsider or modify it. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(1).)
Thanks for posting this (and trying to out the troll on the other thread), CCPS.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The order of dismissal is vacated and the appeal is reinstated".