Attorney Hatfield's Response to GA Secretary of State about Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision

Obama Release Your Records ^ | Tuesday, February 7, 2012; 5:14 AM

[philman_36]

Larry understands the threat to our country, rule of law, national finances and of course, an ineligible, hostile “President”

I'm glad to hear that Mr. Klayman is willing to be counsel and recognizes how important this issue actually is.

I'm going to make an assumption and presume from the rather small amount being sought in donations (though to most it would probably seem a large sum on a person by person case) that such funds are for filing costs, travel expenses, etc. and that Mr. Klayman is going to take this case pro bono publico.

Do you know if I'm correct?

[philman_36]

My apology was sincere.
Well then your future actions here should vindicate you. We'll see.
For now, in my eyes, you're lower than the belly of a snake resting in an old wagon wheel rut at the bottom of Death Valley.

Is this issue that important that you would let it poison your heart?
Which issue? Abortion or presidential eligibility?
Both of those issues are "that important" to me. Both are an abomination before man and God.
And aren't you being rather presumptuous to assume my heart is "poisoned"?
You're not helping your cause one whit in making such a spurious characterization. Keep going. You only further corroborate my assessment of you with such statements.

I will pray for you.
I don't need prayers from the likes of you.

Ephesians 4:14...That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive...

James 1:8 A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways.

[Harlan1196]

I am not sure where we got crossed up on abortion - I have only been discussing eligibility. I share your views on abortion. I sincerely apologize for.that misunderstanding - I certainty understand the great pain that would cause.

[philman_36]

I share your views on abortion.
Well it's nice of you not to qualify your statement this time.

And yet, you do not consider the "presidential eligibility" an abomination as you do not include that in your statement. So, I must therefore conclude that you consider it just, right and proper to lie and commit fraud upon your fellow Citizens. I must conclude that you consider your actions in continuing to "provide cover" and "run interference" for the sitting POTUS "a good thing".

Your own actions says more of your character than anything I could ever say to you.

[Harlan1196]

but there is a fundamental difference - eligibility is not universally supported by conservatives. Very few in fact do. Opposition to abortion is at the moral core of conservativism you cannot support abortion and be a conservative. On the other hand many conservatives disagree with you on eligibility.

[philman_36]

I am not sure where we got crossed up on abortion - I have only been discussing eligibility.
We're not crossed up on abortion. The abortion issue came about because of what you said while trying to impugn my character!
You're simply trying to direct attention away from the fact that you said that I was wrong on every issue every time. There was no "qualifying statement" there, was there?

You have also shown an impressive ability to be wrong on every issue every time...

[philman_36]

On the other hand many conservatives disagree with you on eligibility.
So I'm just supposed to "give way" on issues due to nothing more than "majority opinion"?

[Harlan1196]

Every other sentence in that post is specific to eligibility. How the hell you can think that one sentence in the middle of a post on eligibility was talking about every single one of your beliefs is beyond me. You are just looking for reason to be outraged.

[philman_36]

You are just looking for reason to be outraged.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[Harlan1196]

I would never suggest that - one must hold true their beliefs. I just ask that you not make it a litmus test. One can be a conservative and not accept the eligibility argument.

[philman_36]

I just ask that you not make it a litmus test.
How am I making the eligibility issue a litmus test?
I've not told anybody that they must believe as I do on this issue or they're not a conservative. That is the reason that there is thread after thread here at FR where each side tries to convince others through convincing arguments that they're correct on the issue and the other side isn't.
So don't you dare try to conflate the two issues of eligibility and you blatantly lying about me into one single thing. You're not that crafty.

And while I'm venting...even though the issue appears to be far from settled people like you strut around doing some premature "happy dance" as if this were all finished so everybody should just sit down, shut up and take "it up the old wazoo" simply because "everybody doesn't agree with you".

One can be a conservative and not accept the eligibility argument.
You can be an absolute buffoon and not accept that either.

[Harlan1196]

I didn’t lie about you. I said that every eligibility theory you support has failed every case, every time.

You have yet to prove me wrong.

You taking a single sentence from a post that talk exclusively about eligibility that was in a entire conversation about eligibility and twisting that into an attack on every single one of your beliefs - well come on, you call that a honest debating tactic? You went out of your way to create something to get outraged over so you could launch an all out attack on me. That is not how honorable men act.

With that, I am done. I suggest we simply ignore each other.

[philman_36]

I said that every eligibility theory you support has failed every case, every time.
You not only lie about me, and to me, you lie to yourself.

THIS is what you said!
@194 You have also shown an impressive ability to be wrong on every issue every time - for three years now.

@Why, Harlan, how could a newbie like you have been following little old me for three long years?

@Upper right hand corner > search > philman_36 Amazing technology.

I've got hundreds of posts going back over the last three years and yet you claimed you had seen them all and knew I was wrong on every issue, not just issues on presidential eligibility.

With that, I am done.
You were done before you ever got @out of the gate, IMO.

I suggest we simply ignore each other.
You'll not easily be able to simply slither away from your own well deserved, ignominious fate, snake.

[Harlan1196]

So why do you keep ignoring the ENTIRE post you cherry picked that ONE sentence from? Every other sentence before and after deals explicitly about eligibility. Only a fool would believe that the sentence right in the middle would not be about eligibility.

Why don’t you cite the entire post?

[philman_36]

Why don’t you cite the entire post?

Slither away, snake.

[philman_36]

So why do you keep ignoring the ENTIRE post you cherry picked that ONE sentence from?
Ya know what, you're right! Here ya go...the entire reply that you made!

Why are you talking to us - shouldn't you be on the phone to the Georgia SoS explaining to him how no one in his office knows how to do their jobs? Maybe he will give you a job.
A "personal dig" and nothing more! Nothing of merit whatsoever. It's not even funny.

You have shown ability to gather an impressive collection of legal minutia. You have also shown an impressive ability to be wrong on every issue every time - for three years now.
Where you torpedoed your own boat.

I will make a fearless prediction - this case will go no further. If appealed it will lose. At every level. Every time. And your collection of laws will not change that simple fact.

So there ya go. Nothing but 1) slights, 2) personal attacks and 3) conjecture.

Every other sentence before and after deals explicitly about eligibility. Only a fool would believe that the sentence right in the middle would not be about eligibility.
Your first sentence set the tone in which you intended the whole reply to be taken. Only a fool would think that what you're saying now is true.

[philman_36]

You apparently don't even know how foolish you sound...

...this case will go no further. If appealed it will lose.
An appeal is the case going further.
Or are you simply too obtuse to realize that?

[philman_36]

You asked for it so I gave it to you.

[philman_36]

Every other sentence before and after deals explicitly about eligibility.
Perhaps your problem is that you don't really know the meaning of "explicitly".

[philman_36]

I extend my apologies for all of this. It was not, and is not, my intention to hijack your thread in any manner.