Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers
Here's a clue...the Decision ends on page 3.

By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.

Those are the last sentences on page 3.
Footnote 1 on page 2 is most interesting... This Decision has been consolidated to include the four challenges to President Obama's candidacy filed by Plaintiffs David Farrar, et al., David P. Welden, Carl Swensson, and Kevin Richard Powell

Page 4 begins with...I. Evidentiary Arguments of Plaintiffs Farrar, et al

Yep, decided on the merits of the arguments, not upon any evidence.

50 posted on 02/04/2012 2:32:37 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers
Here's a clue...the Decision ends on page 3.
Well, technically, it's 10 pages long. Pages 1-3 and page 10 are the real important ones.

Section I of this Decision applies only to the case presented by Ms. Taitz on behalf of Mr. Farrar and his co-plaintiffs, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren, and Laurie Roth, and does not pertain, in any way, to the cases of Mr. Welden, Mr. Swensson, and Mr. Powell. Section II applies to all Plaintiffs.

51 posted on 02/04/2012 2:36:58 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson