From the UnionLeader:

Tzitz herself has not mentioned that she actually filed anything with SCOTUS, and nothing new is on the SCOTUS docket.

And the New Hampshire primary is next Tuesday.

From the UnionLeader:

Tzitz herself has not mentioned that she actually filed anything with SCOTUS, and nothing new is on the SCOTUS docket.

And the New Hampshire primary is next Tuesday.

Rappaport's Transitions lenses took more than 20 minutes to change to indoor. Note to self: when running around serving AG's and likesuchas, give your Transitions time to fade before you start your presser.

Marple seemed pretty excited. I could tell Rappaport was annoyed that he talked on and on.

The 'rank and file' birthers (KBOA, NoNeckNancy, etc.) really believe that affidavits are "evidence" and "prove" things.

I don't get how they don't realize that anybody can write anything they want in an affidavit.

C'mon now. An affidavit transforms regular words into majik words. Don't tell me you haven't noticed how they sparkle on your monitor screen.

C'mon now. An affidavit transforms regular words into majik words. Don't tell me you haven't noticed how they sparkle on your monitor screen.

From the nashua telegraph.com...

We’ve had our fill of ‘birther’ babble

...

much more at the link

She's gonna be waaayyyy tooo busy in Hawaii validating that LFBC with her expert to pay any more attention to SCOTUS. Nothing like beating several dead horses at the starting bell.

Perhaps I'm disremembering, but didn't Oily do some screeching about filing an application for stay of the NH primary (persumably pending cert petition) with the SCOTUS, and posted some considerable angsty ponderings regarding which Justice the application would go to initially, and wondering to which other Justice she should resubmit that application once the first denied it?

MOTION FOR REHEARING

Petitioners hereby request this Honorable Court to reconsider its decision not to hear the Appeal filed in the above-captioned case. Petitioners make this request based on Rule 22 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire:

Rule 22 authorizes Petitioners to file the instant motion for reconsideration or rehearing. For the Court’s convenience, the rule is stated here in its entirety:

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rule 22.

(1) A motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be entered upon the filing with the clerk of the supreme court of the original and 7 copies of the motion and a certificate by counsel that a copy of the motion and notice of the filing have been mailed first class or delivered to opposing counsel and to the clerk of the court or agency from which the appeal or transfer was taken, and (in the case of an appeal from an administrative agency) to the attorney general.

(2) Any motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be filed within 10 days from the date of the opinion or dismissal or summary decision in matters in which an opinion is not issued. The motion shall state with particularity the points of law or fact that in the professional judgment of the movant the court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in support of the motion as the movant desires to present, but the motion shall not exceed 10 pages. Oral argument in support of the motion shall not be permitted, except at the invitation of the court.

(3) No answer to a motion for rehearing or reconsideration shall be required unless requested by the court, but any answer or objection must be filed within 10 days from the date the motion was filed.

(3-A) If an answer/objection to a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is filed, no reply to the answer/objection may be filed without permission of the court received in advance. A motion for permission to file a reply must be filed within 10 days from the date the answer/objection has been filed in the clerk’s office; provided, however, that the court may act upon a motion for rehearing or reconsideration prior to the expiration of said ten-day period. Any reply to an answer/objection filed without prior permission of the court shall not be considered by the court.

(4) If a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is granted, the court may make a final disposition of the case without reargument or may restore it to the calendar for reargument or resubmission or make such other orders as are deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

(5) Consecutive motions for rehearing or reconsideration shall not be considered or acted upon by the court.

MOTION

Petitioners herein are seeking a review by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire of the decision reached by the Ballot Law commission. Petitioners are seeking such review under Rule 7 (Discretionary Review) and under Rule 10 (Review by Petition of the Decision by the Agency), which was unlawful and unreasonable as well as under Rule 11. Every issue specifically raised herein has been presented to the administrative agency and has been properly preserved for appellate review by a contemporaneous objection or, where appropriate, by a properly filed pleading.

The Court denied to consider Petitioner’s Appeal without opinion on December 27, 2011. Decision by the court was received by the petitioners on December 29, 2011.

Petitioners ask for reconsideration on the basis that Rule 11 and the prior conduct of the Ballot Law Commission establishes a clear basis for this Honorable Court’s assumption of Original Jurisdiction AND notes for the Court that the Office of State Administrative Hearings in Georgia yesterday allowed a similar challenge to proceed. (Decision Attached as Exhibit 1, hereto.) While this of course has no binding effect on this Honorable Court, it does show that this inquiry has been allowed to proceed by another State, and is not automatically dismissed out of hand by every agency and court that reviews this good faith eligibility challenge.

There should be uniformity in decision for presidential eligibility around the country.


blah blah blah

Petitioners ask for reconsideration on the basis that Rule 11 and the prior conduct of the Ballot Law Commission establishes a clear basis for this Honorable Court’s assumption of Original Jurisdiction AND notes for the Court that theOffice of State Administrative Hearings in Georgia yesterday allowed a similar challenge to proceed. (Decision Attached as Exhibit 1, hereto.) While this of course has no binding effect on this Honorable Court, it does show that this inquiry has been allowed to proceed by another State, and is not automatically dismissed out of hand by every agency and court that reviews this good faith eligibility challenge.

"House Bill 1580 is the product of such a brainstorming session this summer between three freshman House Republicans: Bob Kingsbury of Laconia, Tim Twombly of Nashua and Lucien Vita of Middleton. The eyebrow-raiser, set to be introduced when the Legislature reconvenes next month, requires legislation to find its origin in an English document crafted in 1215.

“All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived,” is the bill’s one sentence.

The Magna Carta, while famed as the first major declaration of rights under English monarchy, is a bit outdated in its actual prose."

A slight threadjack, but birther Rep. Lucien Vita has his paws in something else.

New Hampshire GOP Bill Mandates That New Laws Find Their Origin In 1215 English Magna Carta

There's GOTTA be a different word for that. Storming, maybe. Brain, not so much.

You gotta love these patriots, as far as they are concerned the Constitution is worth bupkis, ONLY the Magna Carta (Yaaaaaaaay England) is worth anything.