Arizona judge grants leave to amend Obama ballot challenge

Posted by By at 24 February, at 22 : 49 PM Print

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Ballot Challenge and Complaint Pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure 15 insofar as Plaintiff is allowed to file a new amended complaint with no filing fee; to avoid the filing fee, the amended complaint anew and must be filed no later than March 1, 2012. This is from an order Kenneth Allen received today.

Arizona Judge Allows Obama Ballot Challenge to be Amended

Arizona News, Ballot News Blog , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

8 Comments

  1. How is it to be amended and why?

    Bloodless Coup, 1 year ago Reply

  2. [...] Arizona judge grants leave to amend Obama ballot challenge!-Posted on Obama Ballot Challenge-By Pamela Barnett-On February 24, 2012: [...]

    The Greatest Fraud Perpetrated in American History! « A Nation ADrift-Why?, 1 year ago Reply

  3. Obama Failed To Appear In An Adminstrative Court Again Today. Instead Of Issuing A Default Ruling Against Obama For His Failure To Appear, The Motion For A Default Ruling Was Flatly Denied. In Addition To Their Letting Obama Off Scott Free, The Ballot Challenge Was Unanimously Denied. This Is Totally UNACCEPTABLE! We Need To Revolt!

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/indiana-election-commission-obamas-moms.html

    Bloodless Coup, 1 year ago Reply

  4. Take care not to get your shorts in such a bunch that it threatens to cut circulation off, ‘down there’.
    The plaintiff decided to amend his original case/charges, and he has till 1 March to do so without having to file new fees, etc. Seems he also has not satisfactorily ‘informed’ Obama et al, and at this late date it is improbable that the case can be heard in time to affect what is on the ballot. Not the court’s fault that the plaintiff wants to amend his case. So, the court has dismissed the original charge, without prejudice (means nothing was decided, and all the original charges etc can be refiled if so willed. No body gets off in any way.)

    I would be concerned in how this case was originally filed, saying he isn’t qualified, and “suggesting he be removed from office’. That part is clearly WAY OUT OF THE ABILITY of this court to do, so why mention it and give a possible excuse to blow the whole thing off?

    Consider not raising too much hell just YET. Illinois and Indiana look to be even more aggravating.

    Peter Bennett, 1 year ago Reply

  5. [...] was ‘not certain’ he had jurisdiction but when presented with evidence that he had, quickly granted leave to the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by March 1, 2012.  The Democrat party, Pima County [...]

    Democrats as Agents of Fraud « drkatesview, 1 year ago Reply

  6. TWO articles from this site, so far have been rejected by Facebook when I tried to post them on my wall.

    Robert Laity, 1 year ago Reply

    • which ones?

      GeorgeM, 1 year ago Reply


Post Your Comment

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE