It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
IMPLICATION. An inference of something not directly declared, but arising from what is admitted or expressed. from what is admitted or expressed.
Which reminds me, has Orly Taitz come up with more drivel recently?
Taitz’s challenge to the award of $4,000 in discovery sanctions in favor of third party Occidental College likewise fails. Taitz contends the trial court erroneously determined that the records she sought from Occidental College were private. To begin with, she has not provided us a copy of the motion, the subpoena, or the reporter’s transcript. Accordingly, we have no way of meaningfully reviewing the order and would affirm on that basis alone. Further, according to the notice of ruling prepared by Occidental College’s counsel, the court’s order was based on numerous grounds, not simply privacy, none of which Taitz addresses in her brief. For example, the court found, (1) the ex parte motion to compel was prepared, filed, and served before Taitz filed and served the underlying subpoena itself; (2) “[t]he ‘ex parte’ motion refers to a request for documents pursuant to . . . Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310 which applies . . . only to parties and Occidental College is not a party in this action;” (3) the subpoena gave Occidental College less than 24 hours to respond; (4) the subpoena was served by e-mail; and (5) “the relief sought cannot be obtained via ex parte application . . . .” Taitz addressed none of these rationales and thus waived the issue on appeal.
reply to post by AutumnWitch657
Have you even bothered reading my post? You seem like you're just spewing whatever comes to mind without deep thought. At least think about what I said and realize what I am saying.
Rafael Cruz, speaking to the North Texas Tea Party on behalf of his son, who was then running for Senate, called President Barack Obama an "outright Marxist" who "seeks to destroy all concept of God," and he urged the crowd to send Obama "back to Kenya."
We're STILL talking about this?
Yes, because the POTUS is really a Kenyan-born, communist Muslim who visits gay bath houses.
The sad thing is, I know people that actually believe the above statement. The POTUS isn't going anywhere, and the poor horse has had enough. Maybe his COLB is fake, but the only people that care are the ones upset that their "team" didn't win.
Anyone that's been on ATS long enough should know by now that the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin.
...pregnant women , they pick a hospital and dr where they will deliver their baby, covered by their insurance, early in the pregnancy.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Here are the images so you can look at them yourself...
-- snip --
reply to post by WanDash
REALLY????? out of everything I posted, you picked that 1 little part?????? come on, those are FACTS on the milage, FACTS how expensive travel was, FACTS how long the travel was. they backed up their info with links of maps of plane travel back then and links of what travel was like from the airline archives etc...
are you suggesting she didn't have any prenatal care???? you picked out that 1 little thing because you can't discredit the rest of the FACTS in my post.
you are so sure...show me my FACTS are wrong!!!
edit on 1-11-2013 by research100 because: (no reason given)
how can you look at these FACTS and still think he was born in KENYA???????? it is mind boggling and makes you look ridiculous
the court ORDERS Mr. Vogt to show cause within 20 days of the date of this order why his complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Mr. Vogt fails to timely respond to the court’s order to show cause or fails to establish a valid basis for this court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction within his response, the court will dismiss his complaint.
In his response, Mr. Vogt fails to provide a valid basis for this court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over his action. … Mr. Vogt fails to address any of the case authority cited by the court in its order to show cause indicating that (1) there is no private right of action under either 18 U.S.C. § 4 or 18 U.S.C. § 2382, (2) private parties generally lack standing to institute a federal criminal prosecution, and (3) private citizens or voters, such as Mr. Vogt, lack standing to challenge President Obama’s qualifications to hold office through the use of misprision of felony or misprision of treason statutes, or otherwise, because they have suffered no particularized injury . (See generally OSC.) The court, therefore, concludes, consistent with the authorities cited in its prior order to show cause, that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Vogt’s action and DISMISSES this action in its entirety without prejudice