11 Responses to “election challenge filed in Indiana”

1. rick
   February 6th, 2012 @ 11:52 am

   Orly,

   I tried to find a local atty to challenge Obama’s election filings here in Oklahoma last year.

   I didn’t find one and there was zero support from ALL elected officials for doing so.

   Now I am told it’s too late, the challenge period is over.

   G_d bless you! Keep up the good work you do!!!

2. steve m
   February 6th, 2012 @ 11:59 am

   keep fighting Orly!!!!!

3. ELECTOR MONITOR
   February 6th, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

   Isn’t there a way to hold the ELECTORS accountable for their negligence?
   Maybe taking the necessary actions on the FRIVOLOUS AND “I don’t care” electors would get a result to MAKE them do their jobs correctly.
   There are 538 electoral votes and ti takes about 270 of them to be elected POTUS, so let’s make sure that there are 268 votes or lower to rid the world of the WHITE HOUSE STINK

4. Mak
   February 6th, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

   What needs to be stressed out to these officials is the social security fraud and that they would be violating the law by no investigating this issue and putting Obama on the ballot.

   Orly, why don’t we hire other investigators to make it strong evidence? All we have right now is an old lady saying she did the research. We need more investigators to back her up. The BC forgery, although true, will sound crazy to any judge.

5. Anonym
   February 6th, 2012 @ 2:58 pm

   Orly, do you have this Indiana court filing — “FILED Nov 12, 2009, 9:55 am” — which, after listing appellants pro se, attorneys for appellee, and other standard data — begins with the following?

   === Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana (“Governor”). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6). . . . ===

   I obtained the link from an article and discussion at Free Republic:

   https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2831111/posts

   Immediately under the article’s title — “Why Wasn’t Ankeny v Daniels Appealed To The Supreme Court?” — you will see the link to the court filing itself.

   I found the reference to the Free Republic discussion at Citizen Wells. In case only one link per post is allowed by the software here, I’ll tell you the title of Citizen Wells’s post instead of his post’s URL:

   “Ankeny v Daniels Appeal Court ruling written by competent judge?, Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Flawed ruling based on flawed ruling, Natural born citizen lies”

   Even if you already have that Indiana court filing, it’s possible that you and/or some of your readers here may be able to find useful information at the Free Republic discussion and/or at Citizen Wells’s discussion.

   Also, Orly, BE SURE you click on Citizen Wells’s PRECEDING post and read the comments below it. LOTS of information there.

6. Anonym
   February 6th, 2012 @ 3:01 pm

   Orly, there is HOPE!

   This is from Citizen Wells’s post preceding the one I just referenced in my comment above.

   CW’s post is titled “Judge Michael Malihi ruling, Indiana Appeals court lies, US Constitution Vs English common law, Supreme court opinions, More Indiana corruption?”

   And poster ‘ksdb’ (February 6, 2012 at 1:05 pm) wrote:

7. Anonym
   February 6th, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

   Orly, my comment (no. 4) above is incomplete. It got cut off just above the information I believe you need. This completes my comment:

   And poster ‘ksdb’ (February 6, 2012 at 1:05 pm) wrote:

   === Judge Malihi has a tradition of being overturned by the Georgia Secretary of State. It happened in 2000, when Cathy Cox took him to task over a very bad ruling on a ballot issue. She said, “accepting the view of the ALJ would mean that a candidate can determine his or her own qualifications …” She also criticized his interpretations of law. ===

   https://sos.georgia.gov/pressrel/pr000607.htm

8. ThePaidTroll
   February 6th, 2012 @ 6:02 pm

   ATTENTION MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, THE US JUDICIARY OBOTS AND FRIENDS

   This is just a reminder that the weekly conspiracy meeting to Keep Obama in office and destroy the constitution will held at the secrete location at 7pm on Thursday February 9th and not on February 10th as previously scheduled.

   All participants are asked to bring refreshments if possible.

9. taino21
   February 6th, 2012 @ 6:30 pm

   Mark, what needs to be stressed is the meaning the founding father’s meant and then all the other evidence would be gravy. I would start by making the judge irrelevant as to how he is to interpret the constitution, by quoting Thomas Jefferson, “On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted,
   recollect the spirit manifested
   in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
   of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
   which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
   Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
   Then give examples:
   David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes).

   In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”
   On a letter to George Washington, John Jay — The First Chief Justice Of The U.S. Supreme Court
   John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
   The judge from Georgia used U.S. vs. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s (1898) which it was irrelevant to the case since in Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court was not trying to decide whether he was a natural born citizen but a U.S. citizen. He failed to look at Perkins v. Elg’s (1939)in which the court indicated that Ms. Elg was a natural born citizen because she was born in N.Y. out of parents who were also U.S. citizens. Instead of researching what the founding father’s meant these corrupt judges rule on what they think it is, and as of my first quote, it is not what any of us think the Constitution means, is what the founding father’s meant it to be.
   Let me give one more example, and believe me there are plenty as well as case law which this judges refuse to acknowledge.
   Let’s look at what the Framer’s used as a guide. This is from Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775. I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”? If you look at The Law Of Nations, Book I Sec. 212 the natural born citizens are defined as follows: “The natives, or natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
   Those who use the excuse that the Constitution does not define what a natural born citizen is fail to tell that there was no need because the founders new. All this is a result of citizens allowing the liberal taking control over our school systems which teach our children selective portions of history to their convenience.

10. carolinalovesamerica
    February 7th, 2012 @ 6:57 am

    “Isn’t there a way to hold the ELECTORS accountable for their negligence?”

    This was done in 2008…in all 50 (oops! I mean 57) states. They ignored the proof of fraud. Most electors are friends/insiders paid off by the parties.

11. job websites
    April 2nd, 2012 @ 2:47 am

    The online job searching route is really a legit option as I was able to find a job through the internet. It really works and I highly recommend it.

Leave a Reply