Thursday, August 30, 2012

~ Judge Thomas Stansfield ~

Fair v Obama: Judge Relies On Case That 
Didn't Rule Plaintiff A Natural Born Citizen
By Tracy Fair

At first I was upset, when I heard that my Obama Ballot Challenge was dismissed.
I figured it had to do with some kind of standing or jurisdiction issue.
But when I finally read the decision, I WAS FUMING!

WHAT A TOTALLY BOGUS DECISION
(IT’S LOOKS LIKE THE OBOTS WROTE THIS DECISION!)

So, it looks as though another judge has decided to define natural born citizen, according to the Indiana,
Ankeny v. Governor & Wong Kim Ark cases, when they clearly do not DEAL with natural born citizenship.

The whole decision contradicts itself, when you actually read the case excerpts he cites and there was a lot of evidence left out and not mentioned in the decision. The court claims Obama is a natural born citizen according to the Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark, just as the Georgia cases did, but if you scroll down and look at the bottom of page 7, and read footnote 14 which is taken from the Ankeny case decision, it clearly states:

FOOTNOTE 14 (Ankeny v. Governor)
14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born Citizen" using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation's history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.

So how the hell can this judge pronounce Obama a natural born citizen according to Ankeny & Wong Kim Ark when neither case, ADMITTED BY ANKENY, deals with natural born citizenship?

Leave your comments to the Judges decision...

Let me know if you think I should appeal!

RULING EMBEDDED BELOW AND HERE AND HERE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/104377229/Fair-v-Obama-Maryland-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Decision-8-27-2012

SEE THE CITIZEN STATUS OF EVERY POTUS. OBAMA ONLY "PRESIDENT" AFTER GRANDFATHER CLAUSE THAT DID NOT HAVE TWO CITIZEN PARENTS AT TIME OF HIS BIRTH: http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/image/!Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud.pdf

FLASHBACK: Obama Is The Original Birther! Obama In 1991 Stated In His Own Bio He Was Born In Kenya. DETAILS HERE. 


SHOCK CLAIM: Breitbart Reporter Charles Johnson Has Documented Proof Obama is Indonesian Citizen - AUDIO HERE. 

WATCH SHERIFF JOE'S 2ND OBAMA INVESTIGATION PRESS CONFERENCE HERE: CLICK HERE.

WATCH SHERIFF JOE'S 1ST PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/joe.html 

SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/arizonavideo.html

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Fair v Obama - Maryland Obama Ballot Challenge Decision - 8/27/2012

New Ad - AZ Sheriff Arpaio - Obama Birth Cert & Draft Reg Card Are Forged! Wash Times Natl Wkly - 12 Ma...

69 comments:

  1. Another travesty of justice!!

    APPEAL IT!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The judge is "WrONG" :-)

    ROFLMAO

    ReplyDelete
  3. your right and you should appeal and then take the judge to the state board.

    ReplyDelete
  4. First of all, Thank you for this ballot challenge, Tracy. You are to be commended for trying to see this matter through to a successful conclusion in the judicial system. Second: Please do appeal. You have a valid point in your reading of the decision. More than one judge has decided to follow the Indiana decision lead on this, as 'precedent', without realizing its fallacious reasoning. Appeal with information from Mario Apuzzo, Esq about REAL Supreme Court precedent on this (apuzo1.blogspot.com). Don't let them get away with their attempts not to touch this subject even with a ten-foot pole. The judicial system MUST be forced to rule properly on this issue. The rule of law in this country - i.e., the Constitution - hangs in the balance. Best of luck in your endeavors to have this wrong righted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there not one judge in this country that can't be bought off ? I'm so disgusted with them and the media . The commies are winning. We have to stop this while we still can !

      Delete
  5. Unless Obama loses in this next election, nothing short of a Military Coup will unseat the defacto dictator.

    The Courts and the Media are both hopelessly biased and corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Comes down to The United States Constitutional Republic VS Democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wonder how much longer it will be before Trump unloads on Fox. . Mitty Mouse can't attack anyone unless it's another Republican" he's goo at that ". . . . I'm no fan of Bill Clinton but maybe he will turn the tables on Obama at the Dem convention. I almost wish Trump would have ran for Prez.

    ReplyDelete
  8. > Appeal with information from Mario Apuzzo, Esq about REAL Supreme Court precedent on this

    Apuzzo himself lost the only case where he ever personally defended his NBC arguments.

    It's a dead end road (either because the Vattelists are wrong or because the courts won't rule in our favour, ever).

    The courts are a dead end road. Even if we found one judge who agrees with us, it would be reversed on appeal and the propaganda value has been reduced to zilch (remember how nobody took Sheriff Arpaio seriously?).

    We need to take the issue to the streets, anything else is just hoping against hope.

    (Not to mention some "birther" representatives seem to fail on purpose, like Orly.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. US v Wong Kim Ark holds that the native born child of an alien is never a natural born citizen.

    Ankenny misquotes it

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't know how long you have to decide, but, you might want to wait for the Supreme Court to decide whether or not to hear the Georgia case which is now before it. If they hear the case, we will finally have a chance to reveal Obama's deception, and your case will probably not be necessary. If they won't hear it, appeal, but, be aware, the SC will probably not hear any case, if they won't hear this one. And this issue must be decided by the SC, as frightening as that thought is, after the un-Constitutional Obamacare decision.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This will soon END--thank God! Our current President will soon be unseated! BUT----REMEMBER WISCONSIN! Where in Dane County (Democrat country) 118% of Dane County voters showed up to vote to recall Gov. Walker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's right---118%, yet Democrats insist there is NO "voter fraud going on in our nation"

    ReplyDelete
  12. This will soon END--thank God! Our current President will soon be unseated! BUT----REMEMBER WISCONSIN! Where in Dane County (Democrat country) 118% of Dane County voters showed up to vote to recall Gov. Walker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's right---118%, yet Democrats insist there is NO "voter fraud going on in our nation"

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is a perfect example of how far ahead of you we are on this issue. Who do you think was driving the Ankeny case? Us!

    The only reason the case was brought was to provide "precdent" that allows other courts to rule against you without looking too biased. A pro se case that nobody else jumped on and that was resolved at the appellate level with a written decision and then dropped. Perfect for us and straight out of the Alinsky playbook. At the time, you had no idea what hit you - you all just dismissed it as unimportant. Regret much?

    Always two steps ahead,

    Calamity Jane.

    (although it should be noted that any case in Washington state is doomed - we control way too much there).

    ReplyDelete
  14. do not appeal...... take the treaonous sob TO THE WOODSHED !!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
    - John F. Kennedy

    Loaded and Unlocked

    Vietnam Veteran

    ReplyDelete
  16. If Mitty Mouse can't stand up to the media clows and The New Black.Panties how's he gonna stand up to Saudi, Russia, china, and Iran ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. After reading "Susan Daniels", recent, lawsuit regarding Obama's eligibilty as President.....I believe her lawsuit will be thrown out. Obama's Lawyers' stated she did not have a case due to the fact that "she was not a Democrat". The Lawyers' stated that because she was not a Democratic her issues could not be raised in the Courts. It made me ask the question: "If I was a Democrat, running against Obama, could I then sue him in a Court of Law?" It seems to me that, only, "IF" you were a Democrat.....could I then sue Obama. Is this true regarding Obama's Lawyers' arguement? And....."IF" this is true......then.....could a Constitutional Lawyer sue Obama.....for changing "The Democratic Requirements" for Presidency? In Susan Daniels lawsuit, she raises the fact that the Democratic Party has changed their Democratic Requirements from the words "U.S. Constitution" to "Democratic Party". Was this legal? And..."IF" this is not legal....then will it take a "Constitutional Lawyer" to restore the Democratic Requirement "Wording" to it's original U.S. Constitution "Wording"?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Calamity Jane

    Always two steps ahead,


    Tic toc tic toc Nutbag Jane. Only 68 days left before you OBots get caught and your OBot your little pee pees get stepped on.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I tried to tell Tracy that her case had about as much chance as a pet store bunny at a coyote convention.

    And that not because the judge is bought, or intimidated, or wrong. It's because the two-citizen-parent claim has been analyzed to death, and it simply has no merit from any legal, Constitutional, or historical perspective.

    Also, I should note that the Ankeny court didn't state that Wong Kim Ark failed to find Wong a natural born citizen. They stated,

    We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born Citizen" using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial.

    And they were right.

    The Wong Kim Ark Court did not EXPLICITLY label Wong a "natural born Citizen" (using the complete term all in one place).

    They did, however, very CLEARLY find that Wong was BOTH "a citizen" AND "natural born."

    Most of us can put 1 plus 1 together, and find that it equals 2.

    Some, however, seem incapable of doing the addition.

    In any event, I think Tracy should appeal. It will give her something to do.

    She just shouldn't expect her appeal to have as much chance as her original case... which was about 1 out of 10,000,000 to start with.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Anonymous

    Not according to this Judge. After citing almost all of the Ankeny opinion he says,

    "The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion, and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. While Ms Fair and Ms. Miltenberger may disagree with the holding of the Supreme Court, from a perspective of stare decises, the only means by which an opinion of the Supreme Court concerning substantive law can be overturned is either by a subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Both have occurred in the past on very rare occasions, but this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama.” Judge Thomas F. Stansfield

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tracy Fair: "(IT’S LOOKS LIKE THE OBOTS WROTE THIS DECISION!)"

    I DID WRITE THIS DECISION. What's your point?

    What I want to know, Tracy, is how come I didn't make your Obot Hall of Fame video?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The judge in this case, relied on 'CASE' Law vs. Constitutional Law.

    Case law is the set of existing rulings which made new interpretations of law and, therefore, can be cited as precedent.

    In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."

    However; Constitutional law is the body of law which defines the relationship of different entities within a state, namely, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.
    Not all nation states have codified constitutions, though all such states have a jus commune, or law of the land, that may consist of a variety of imperative and consensual rules. These may include customary law, conventions, statutory law, judge-made law or international rules and norms, and so on.
    The Constitution of the United States comprises the primary law of the U.S. Federal Government. It also describes the three chief branches of the Federal Government and their jurisdictions. In addition, it lays out the basic rights of citizens of the United States. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest Federal constitution in existence and was framed by a convention of delegates from twelve of the thirteen original states in Philadelphia in May 1787. The Constitution is the landmark legal document of the United States.

    Since 1933, Courts by activist Judges have relied on Case law to circumvent the United States Constitution, FDR was a master of this by packing the United States Supreme Court. If the highest court in land says it's legal to rob a bank, then the only recourse is to get rid of the court and start again with judges that have moral character. Over throw the court, because when the lawless rule, there is no law.

    ReplyDelete
  23. > Was this legal?

    Courts have ruled time and again that they cannot tell a party who to nominate or not to nominate.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Anonymous said...[Reply]

    US v Wong Kim Ark holds that the native born child of an alien is never a natural born citizen.

    Ankenny misquotes it
    August 30, 2012 5:10 AM "

    Amazing. Where in the world do you get this stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Anonymous Yes Calamity Jane, when this is over you will be one of the first ones tried and convicted of Treason. You do realize the penalty for treason sweetie?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ankeny can be challenged since it misquotes WKA.

    WKA holds that the native born child of an alien is NEVER a natural born citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Your Perfect Record for consecutive losses is again extended!

    Way to play, Birthers!

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's the "Democrat Party".
    These liberal, obots are anything but democratic!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I wonder if a FOIA request would show inappropriate communications between Team Obama and the judge. We know there was collusion, but I just wonder how well they hid it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @RacerJim

    Yeh good luck with that you seditionist human garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh, what a bunch of hooey. Wong Kim Ark and WKA Lite (Ankeny) define "natural born citizen" multiple times, as:

    A person born inside the country and under its jurisdiction, which means the parents are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers. The citizenship of the parents is irrelevant.

    Thus, while the WKA did not specifically use the term, "natural born citizen" in the final few sentences of the final holding, the fact that Wong was born in the United States, and his parents were neither of the two exceptions above, he was a citizen.

    My goodness, even the Birther Holy Grail Case (Minor) uses the terms native born, natural born, and citizens interchangeably. Birthers are sooo busy obsessing about Grammar, that they flunk Reading Comprehension.

    If you think I am wrong, then who is it who keeps getting paddled out of the courtroom??? BIRTHERS!!! The judges keep telling you and you keep on not listening.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Anonymous

    The judge specifically says he has to go by Supreme Court decisions. He only cites Ankeny and Wong to show what the Supreme Court held the term natural born to be. He even gives you a path to change the Supreme Court's definition. A new Supreme Court decision overturning the Wong decision (unlikely to happen) or a new Constitutional amendment (also unlikely to happen).

    ReplyDelete

  33. Billboards Warning of Martial Law Go Up in Florida

    http://www.infowars.com/billboards-warning-of-martial-law-go-up-in-florida/

    ReplyDelete
  34. @John Woodman You sir, are a fucking asshole as evidenced by the nonsensical venom you spew here and elsewhere on the web. I would pay to spend just five minutes locked in a 10x10 windowless room with you. Betcha you'd have a different outlook at minute 11.

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

    ReplyDelete
  35. kanbun,

    not only are YOU spouting nonsensical venom, but backing it up with a goodly helping of violent rhetoric.

    `i don´t like what you say, so i want to hurt you´ - that´s a real highbrow train of though you have there.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Anonymous
    The Court, in the "WKA" case, is COMPARING the U.S. native born of an alien TO the "natural born" child of a U.S. citizen; NOT EQUATING the two--as the sub-ordinating term; "AS", indicates.

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898)- "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistably lead us to these conclusions: Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here...if he hath issue here...his child If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Squeeky Fromm
    "subject to the jurisdiction" means not owing allegiance to anyone else


    bo jr was born a Citizen of the UK & Colonies

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Squeeky Fromm
    "Ankeny" is not in s position to "define" anything and the SUPREME COURT in "Wong" DID NOT use the terms "native born" & "natural born" "interchangeably" quite to the contrary ;it used them comparatively clearly delineating btw the two distinct classes

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Anonymous said "I wonder if a FOIA request would show inappropriate communications between Team Obama and the judge. We know there was collusion, but I just wonder how well they hid it."

    Wow are you stupid!

    Have you not been paying attention?

    You think this is new for us?

    Do you seriously think that we're leaving records about our activities in government databases and that we'd turn those records over to you if you asked for them???

    No wonder you guys have lost - if this is the best you can come up with I feel dumb for working so hard to take control of the government and courts and covering our tracks long enough to consolidate that power.

    I'll save you the time - any FOIA request on this issue will come back as "no such record found." Do you really think we're not paying attention?

    We've taken the government from you using any means necessary and we'll keep the government the same way. This isn't amatuer hour.

    Sheesh! Get with the program, folks.

    Calamity Jane.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sore losers....


    How many hundred failures in a row using the same fallacious musings is it going to take before birthers start to consider the possibility they might just be wrong?

    If birthers are so much smarter than every judge, Constitutional expert, and Official in the entire country.... why aren't you running the country instead of driving taxi and waiting tables?

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Ken

    Another travesty of justice!!

    APPEAL IT!


    No! File for reconsideration first, then appeal it!

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Anonymous

    remember how nobody took Sheriff Arpaio seriously?

    Was there a time when anyone did take Sheriff Arpaio seriously? In another life perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  43. “Courts have ruled time and again that they cannot tell a party who to nominate or not to nominate.”

    In which specific cases did they time and again so rule, and how can such opinions possibly trump specific state laws that allow challenges on the basis of a candidate’s legal ineligibility for the office sought?

    ReplyDelete
  44. “Courts have ruled time and again that they cannot tell a party who to nominate or not to nominate.”

    In which specific cases did they time and again so rule, and how can such opinions possibly trump specific state laws that allow challenges on the basis of a candidate’s legal ineligibility for the office sought?

    ReplyDelete
  45. As I was treating my vulva yeast infection, I thought of all you birthers. God this is messy stuff, all greasy, but it cuts the burn!

    And yes, we have burned you birthers, like a good yeast infection! We're so clever, ha ha. We're always two steps ahead of you. Sure, you have the element of history and time on your side, butt we will keep whining through Chris Matthews and our beloved beached whale Michael Moore about how way-sist you all are to demand that the constitution be respected..

    Oops, my keyboard is gooky from yeastie beasties and ointment. Gotta go.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Birthers, you may have your silly constitution, but we own the media. Face it, the constitution is shit and dead. Best arm up if you want to fight us, because we're dead set on exterminating the constitution and constitutionalists.

    ReplyDelete
  47. You birthers may mock us commies for being retards who can never get it right...well maybe you're right...
    but that won't stop us trying to reinvent the square wheel. It will work if we persevere!

    ReplyDelete
  48. It's an OBot bum rush to this thread!

    And Ooooooh Noooooooo! That wacky "Squeeky Guuurly Reporter" is here too. LoL.

    Hey OBots, It's not too long now before the Kenyan gets his butt kicked out of office. I wouldn't believe any of those polls like PEW who have Obama ahead because they had to poll 19% more Dim-Dems than Rs. LoL. But you go right ahead and "Believe"!

    BTW, going after the truth to expose OBama's BS past will stay a sport whether he is in office or not. Heh.



    ReplyDelete
  49. Tracy,
    Besides turning the judge in to the designated governing board for judicial misconduct, you can also sue the judge in a tort action for the harm that he has inflicted on you for his stupid decision. This could be made into a class-action suit. Suing a judge is always tough, but you may find it exhilarating. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Check out this page on suing judges:

    http://caught.net/prose/suejud.htm

    you could also raise "conflict of interest" in that both the judge and obozo are government employees. Hope this helps.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Here's another link for useful info on US code sections for cause of actions to sue a judge under:

    http://www.justanswer.com/law/46jxy-sued-family-court-judge-federal-court-us.html

    Oh, and demand that the case be heard by a common-law jury - not another corrupt judge.

    Think of this: when this idiot judge gets served with the complaint, he will pee his pants. He can then give them to Calamity Jane, who can then have fun with them, thereby re-infecting herself.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Red Right Hand

    You birthers may mock us commies for being retards...

    @Calamity Jane

    As I was treating my vulva yeast infection...

    @Witch

    Birthers, you may have your silly constitution...

    Now thats sad! Faced with competition, birthers take to posting under others' names.

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  53. @RS

    Well, say what you will, but I have been destroying the Birther pseudo-legal arguments for over a year now. With artistic flair and elan!!!

    And I just know that sooo irritates Birthers every time that you lose another stupid case, and there I was predicting it, and teasing you after you lost!!! Because I get to say, ITYS!!!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    ReplyDelete
  54. Of course we're scared shitless in reality because TIME and TRUTH are not on our sides. Birthers are right, we have things manipulated, temporarily, but we can't hold back the tides forever. We're quite afraid once people get the big financial hits,all that pain, that they will hunt us commies out like bloodhounds. Pitch forks coming for us commies...yikes.

    ReplyDelete
  55. You birthers are mean!

    ReplyDelete
  56. @Squeeky Fromm

    but I have been destroying the Birther pseudo-legal arguments for over a year now. With artistic flair and elan!!!

    Hahahaaa... Funny guurl Squeek, you're a legend between your ears. LoL.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Kanbun:

    If you don't like anything I've said, refute it with facts.

    And if you don't have the facts on your side, then you don't have a problem with me. You have a problem with the situation.

    Look, I sympathize. You would like for Obama to be ineligible. I really can't help it that he isn't.

    If you don't want him to be President any more, our Founding Fathers in their wisdom created a means by which you can be rid of him and have a new President.

    Vote for someone else in November -- as I myself will be doing. And get a bunch of other people to vote with you against him.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Obama is a statutory citizen, who are never a natural born citizen.
    Only retardocommies are too braindead to get it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @RS
    Are you kidding??? The Freeper Birthers got sooo tired of me beating them like carpets over a clothesline WITH LOGIC, that they got me banned. I have photos of them crying and wailing!!!

    I reduced Leo Donofrio to a quivering wreck on a thread, and a few days later, he was out of the Birther Business.

    Dr. Taitz calls me "one of the nastiest Obots", and I have pushed Mario Apuzzo, Esq. around so badly, that he thinks I am a lawyer, and has done two Internet Articles on me.

    Sooo, no I am NOT imagining things. Birthers run like little girls when I get on a thread because they know I am going to expose them for a bunch of know-nothing quacks.

    So There!!!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    ReplyDelete
  60. APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL -IF YOU LIVE IN THAT STATE START A RECALL AS THAT JUDGE LAKES THE MENTAL CAPICATY TO DO HIS JOB -ACCORDING TO HIS OATH ---
    THE INTERNET CAN BE A VERY POWERFUL TOOL-IF USED RIGHT--LOOK AT ZUMBO --the dumbo--



    RAY P.H.D. LAW

    ReplyDelete
  61. > IF YOU LIVE IN THAT STATE START A RECALL AS THAT JUDGE LAKES THE MENTAL CAPICATY TO DO HIS JOB

    That's kinda ironic coming from someone who can't spell "lacks" or "capacity".

    Seriously, if we had the numbers to recall a judge for disagreeing with us, they'd better be out on the streets MAKING SOME NOISE.

    So stop the Obot diversions (yeah, waste time going after an unimportant judge!) and LET'S ROLL!

    ReplyDelete
  62. oooh! KBOA is getting hit for costs!

    BWAHAHAHA!

    great stuff, getting bitchslapped and then being told you have to pay for being bitchslapped.

    couldn´t have happened to a nicer person

    :D :D

    ReplyDelete
  63. @AnonymousI would not be one bit surprised to find out that some Obot who KBOA "outed" contacted the judge and told him all about her, and that is why she got hit with the costs. For being a naughty person.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    ReplyDelete
  64. Squeeky said: "I would not be one bit surprised to find out that some Obot who KBOA "outed" contacted the judge"

    Who is KBOA? Tracey Fair?

    How could anyone take Tracy's "outings" seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  65. `How could anyone take Tracy's "outings" seriously?´

    when she outs peole, puts their employers and other information out in the public domain, that is serious and smacks of mc carthyism.

    she engages in a campaign of spitefulness when her wild hopes and dreams don´t come true by lashing out at those who have pointed out that she is a fool, and why.

    a truly repugnant example of a birfoon

    ReplyDelete
  66. "she engages in a campaign of spitefulness"

    She has a reason to be spiteful. She's losing.

    Or rather, she's lost.

    ReplyDelete
  67. > when she outs peole, puts their employers and other information out in the public domain, that is serious and smacks of mc carthyism.

    No, it just smack of Obot smoke and mirrors.

    Why should we waste our time going after Obots (or judges who rule against us as Orly wants us to)? Don't we have better things to do with the precious little time we have left?

    What is gained by "getting back" at some keyboard propagandist on the Obama payroll?

    This "Tracy Fair" is just another Obot trying to drain our resources, or land us in jail, or both.

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.