GA – Farrar v Obama – Appeal – Jablonski’s motion to consolidate
Jablonski has filed a motion to consolidate the appeals of Farrar, Swensson, Weldon and Powell. IIRC none of them realized that they had to sue the SOS… Or inform him of their actions… Or…
3 Responses to “GA – Farrar v Obama – Appeal – Jablonski’s motion to consolidate”
Powerful – Change
State Election Challenges
Recent Comments
- NBC on Noonan not Happy
- donna on Noonan not Happy
- NBC on US v Wong Kim Ark – Brief on Behalf of the Appellant (Government)
- Alcum on US v Wong Kim Ark – Brief on Behalf of the Appellant (Government)
- NBC on CA – Noonan v Obama – Barnett Blows It…
- donna on CA – Noonan v Obama – Barnett Blows It…
- realist on Taitz v Ruemmler – Appeal – Summary Affirmance Granted
- NBC on CA – Noonan v Obama – Barnett Blows It…
- donna on CA – Noonan v Obama – Barnett Blows It…
- Northland10 on AZ – SOS Bennett – The Verification
- NBC on CA – Noonan v Obama – Barnett Blows It…
- donna on CA – Noonan v Obama – Barnett Blows It…
- NBC on CA – Noonan v Obama – Barnett Blows It…
- Reality Check on CA – Noonan v Obama – Barnett Blows It…
- J. Potter on ‘Toughest’ Sheriff avoids getting ‘leid’
Too Busy

Blog Stats
- 1,102,270 visits
Categories
Myths Debunked
- Natural Born
- Dual Citizenship
- Indonesian Adoption
- Indonesian Citizenship
- Indonesian Passport
- Loss of Citizenship
- Multiple SSN
- Obama SSN Fraud
- Pakistan
- Subject to the jurisdiction thereof
- US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
- A lesson learned? Plaintiff in Affordable Care Act files for medical bankruptcy
- AZ Governor not taking Arpaio too seriously
Blogroll
Court Cases - Appeals
Court Cases - Appeals Dismissed
Court Cases - Dismissed
- Ankeny v Governor of Indiana
- Berg v Obama
- Berg v Obama (Qui Tam)
- Brockhausen v Andrade
- Broe v Reed
- Cohen v Obama
- Cook v Good
- Craig v US
- Greenberg v Brunner
- Hunter v Obama
- Jones v Obama
- Kelso v Obama
- Kerchner v Obama
- Keyes v Lingle
- Keyes v Obama
- Lightfoot v Bowen
- Orly v Obama
- Purpura v Sebelius
- Re: Super American Grand Jury
- Rhodes v Gates
- Rhodes v McDonald
- Schneller v Cortes
- Strunk v XXX
- Sullivan v Marshall
- Thomas v Hosemann
- Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz
Consolidate … and …. ANNIHILATE!
*says my inner dalek*
Technically speaking, Jablonski wrote a letter; he did not “file a motion”. In terms of court process, it’s a fairly important distinction.
You are correct.