Candidate & Legal Challenge SCoTX - In re Laura Lynee Wilkinson and Edward Sunderland

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9372
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Candidate & Legal Challenge SCoTX - In re Laura Lynee Wilkinson and Edward Sunderland

#26

Post by Orlylicious » Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:32 am

Orly still wins for "Fastest Dismissal in Texas by a Birther" doesn't she? :lol:
Avatar Photo: Dedicated to Slim by the International Brotherhood of Weasels.
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Candidate & Legal Challenge SCoTX - In re Laura Lynee Wilkinson and Edward Sunderland

#27

Post by bob » Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:21 pm

From their GoFundMe page:
On March 4, The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment. I doubt they read it. However, per process I am allowed to petition for a rehearing and that has been consuming my time. I have until the 21st to submit the motion to rehear. If we are denied again, we go to the SCOTUS. If not, then we go to a hearing in Texas and address the merits of the case.

* * *

This election is shaping up to be even more out there than the 2012 election was

All we need is one case to examine the merits
:yankyank:

To state the obvious: the PFR will be denied.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12379
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Candidate & Legal Challenge SCoTX - In re Laura Lynee Wilkinson and Edward Sunderland

#28

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Mar 13, 2016 12:17 am

What hearing in TX?? The USSC won't give them the time of day and it will probably be sometime after the election before they respond.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Candidate & Legal Challenge SCoTX - In re Laura Lynee Wilkinson and Edward Sunderland

#29

Post by bob » Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:00 pm

The ob. motion for rehearing. Wilkinson also sent the court this letter, which, essentially, asks the court to take judicial notice of some J.B. Williams' :yankyank: -ery. :roll:

From the gofundmepage:
Here is the latest. The Motion to Rehear en banc was filed on time March 21. So far the motion has not been denied but under Calendars it reads "Forward Matters" and "Motion for Rehearing". Earlier it read that the Judges were reviewing the petitions. I am somewhat ambivalent about the Court. I expect them to do what all the other courts have done and flagrantly disregard the law and fail in their duties. However, this time it is a bit harder to drop kick this challenge into the ditch. This is about electoral process and a whopping big failure in that process. Ed and I have standing and the SCOTX has original jurisdiction under law. The clerk in charge of this hot mess tells me that the Court should make a decision next week. I'll let y'all know when I know. Thanks for your support.
Over at ORYR/BR, Sunderland left a comment explaining how SCoTX "denied as moot because [the original petition] exceeded the page limit." :roll: I'd link to the full comment, but BR is still not available on my desktop.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26817
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Candidate & Legal Challenge SCoTX - In re Laura Lynee Wilkinson and Edward Sunderland

#30

Post by bob » Wed May 04, 2016 5:23 pm

Which was denied last Friday. :thumbs:

From the gofundme page:
As of April 29th the SCOTX denied the motion for reconsideration of their initial denial of Wilkinson and Sunderland v Texas Secretary of State, et al. It was not unexpected and adds further evidence to the long time transformation of this nation from a Constitutional Republic to a Plutarchy. The case should have been heard. The SCOTX has jurisdiction and the State of Texas is negligent in their management of the Texas State Election System. This should begin to scare a great many people. We know both Political Parties are working against the nation and its people, we know the Executive and Legislative branches of the US Government are corrupt. Now we expose that the Judiciary is complicit in this mess. The SCOTX is filled with cowards who have failed in their duty to protect the State of Texas from fraud. They hope this will pass them by. The State process has failed, it is now time to expose that the national process is also being manipulated to fail. The SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in this matter. Now that the SCOTX has speciously denied the demand for performance, it falls to the SCOTUS to resolve the matter. As they should have done in 2008 but refused to and instead installed a usurper to the Office of the President KNOWING he was under challenge for his eligibility.

Please donate what you can, because it is likely that we will be forced to pay the SCOTUS to consider the case which, ironically, proves that Citizens United is violated by the SCOTUS in their disenfranchisement of US Citizens under their own holdings.

The system is broken and it is a black day for it.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”