Comments on: Broe v. Reed: Case Dismissed “Without Comment”; Going to SCOTUS!

By: Chief Justice Roberts

Chief Justice Roberts — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:23:22 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Chief Justice Roberts - Keeper of America’s Future - Obama - The BOPAC Report « "The BOPAC Report" & Larry Sinclair’s Allegations - ZachJonesIsHome

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:05:52 +0000

[...] Electoral College. (See Hollister v Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Keyes v Obama, Broe v Reed, et. al.) It seems very clear that either of these types of plaintiffs would be able to overcome [...]

By: "The BOPAC Report" & Larry Sinclair’s Allegations - ZachJonesIsHome

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:55:26 +0000

[...] Berg v Obama – Lightfoot v Bowen – Broe v Reed – Keyes v Obama [...]

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:53:18 +0000

Glenda,

SCOTUS has simply denied Certiorari on the cases it’s seen, thus far, because 4 out of 9 Justices thought that the lower courts ruled correctly in terms of Plaintiff non-standing to make a case. A lot of that has to do with the fact that typically only officials such as Secretaries of State have standing to bring such suits (that’s at least my opinion of the situation).

Thanks for the comment,

-Phil

By: Glenda

Glenda — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:32:56 +0000

I would like for someone to explain to me, why the SCOTUS can decline or dismiss the most important issue, The Constitution, with simply, declined, dismissed, and no explaination to the American public. Secondly, I have read where the SCOTUS can be impeached, if correct, why is the American public hesitating to do so, since I do not see The Constitution being upheld. Is that not there job ?

Thanx,
Glenda

By: Phil

Phil — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:57:51 +0000

Mr. Appel,

I think the point of the post’s title is (based on the history of numerous State-based cases) that Mr. Pidgeon has every intention of going to the Supreme Court with his case; clearly, the only hurdle in doing so is that all applicable lower levels of the Judiciary must first be exhausted before any writs or applications would be considered by the Justices.

Thanks for the comment,

-Phil

By: Howard Appel

Howard Appel — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:54:48 +0000

What a misleading title: “Washington Supreme Court clears hurdle to allow Broe v Reed to push for SCOTUS review:” This makes it sound as if the Washington Supreme Court granted or approved the filing with the US Supreme Court, when in fact the Washington Supreme Court denied the petition entirely, thereby meaning that the US Supreme Court is the only possible court that may now act. If the Washington Supreme Court had viewed the petition favorably, they could have voted to hear argument on. They didn’t even do that.

Seriously misleading, the author should be ashamed.

By: mayflower

mayflower — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:25:03 +0000

DCL I am dreaming…cannot wait for the evidence to arrive.

By: Pass The Word

Pass The Word — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:23:08 +0000

God Help This Nation…

By: DCL

DCL — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:20:37 +0000

Nonsense about wanting to get denied by a lower court. This has zero chance getting heard in SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has already rejected three similar cases in the 30 days.
The most recent was last Friday with the Berg case. The next one comes up on 1/21, but that has already rejected by one justice, just like the prior one were before geeting tossed in the pile of hundreds of cases that will be rejected without comment in the next Friday conference.
Dream on.

By: Emily

Emily — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:24:55 +0000

Personally, I can’t wait until we start trying these traitors in Congress and the Unsupreme Court for treason, and televise the hangings on the Capitol steps. It’s about time we start making it expensive for throwing the Constitution under the bus.

One more thing — do you all know that many judges HAVE NOT SIGNED THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE? The infiltration of communist/socialist forces into our government has been thorough and been going on for decades. Many judges have refused to sign their Oaths of Office to defend the Constitution. They know that if they do not sign their oath, they can’t be prosecuted for NOT upholding the U.S. Consitution. In the early 90’s there were demonstrations in Dallas, Texas for about 2+ years on the steps of the state courthouse against many of these judges. Nobody really cared though (it was covered on local TV and radio), and the judges still never signed their oaths. If I were in the states where these court cases are held, I would be checking to see if these judges had signed their oaths of office.

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:43:50 +0000

Rich,

I believe that your observation will turn out to be correct.

My understanding is that this case was heard as a private case (meaning the proceedings of the case weren’t made public), so one could also speculate that Mr. Pidgeon was able to garner more information to which we’re not privy on what the Defense was using against the case. We’ll see.

Thanks for the comment,

-Phil

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:40:24 +0000

I’m not a lawyer, but I believe Pidgeon wanted the case dismissed “without comment” so there will no prejudice when the case arrives at the Supreme Court. Supremes do not want to overturn lower court rulings, so by sending it along to the Supremes, there is no decision to overturn, it is sent to the court without prejudice. Had the Washington State court ruled on the case, then sent to the Supreme Court, then Pidgeon would bear the entire burden of the case to get it overturned.

By: Dorothy

Dorothy — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:54:53 +0000

Okay, the court finds that the SOS was at wrong, then why grant SOS the right to dismiss the case? Would someone please explain this?

What’s next for this case?

By: OLD GLORY

OLD GLORY — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:54:42 +0000

JUSTICE ALITO needs a case. Join the Constitution Party. Encrypt=Lan Lamphere. My wife passed away JAN3, in ICU during 08 election and during 9-11. Something terrible is coming. 6 months after Lincoln’s election, Americans were slaughtering each other.
Take a look at JOHN TITOR.com