N.J. ballot challenge

User avatar
bob
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #26 by bob » Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:16 pm



Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 6214
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #27 by Notorial Dissent » Thu Apr 14, 2016 2:49 pm

Of course he will, and then Blovario will get another chance to bloviate again. Sighhhhhh, same old same old.


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.

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #28 by Mr. Gneiss » Thu Apr 14, 2016 6:59 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:Of course he will, and then Blovario will get another chance to bloviate again. Sighhhhhh, same old same old.

Maybe the courts will fine his arse this time instead of letting Putzy write himself out of being fined. :mrgreen:



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 13552
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #29 by Reality Check » Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:11 am

It appears that where rulings have addressed the merits they are coming down on the side that anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen. I believe that until a ruling comes down to the contrary we might even say the question is settled.


Peace & Love & Light!

Rick Skalsky

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 6214
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #30 by Notorial Dissent » Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:06 pm

Right now there is really no precedent that says otherwise so it is easier to take the course of least resistance.


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: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #31 by bob » Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:19 pm

Williams claims he threw paper at the NJ Guv'r.

For a constitutional eggspert, Williams doesn't know the guv'r has no authority.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 6214
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #32 by Notorial Dissent » Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:03 pm

I see a whole lot of whining on by Williams, but not a whole lot else. He really does seem quite clueless, in that he doesn't know the chain of command on election proceedings. The guv'r as you point out has no part in it, and I really don't see why he should even care when it come right down to it. He also doesn't seem to be real clear on judicial review. I would suspect, if this is even reviewable at all, that he would have to go and lose at a district court before he could go to the appellate division. Truly clueless.


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: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #33 by bob » Sun Apr 17, 2016 12:09 pm



Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #34 by bob » Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:42 pm

"For completeness": some birther (Robert Pilchman) had filed amicus exceptions to the ALJ's ruling. :yankyank:


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #35 by bob » Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:56 pm

At Apuzzo!'s:
Apuzzo wrote:In the hearing before New Jersey ALJ Jeff Masin, he asked that the Objectors, Victor Williams, Fernando Powers, Donna Ward, and Bruce Stom, stipulate to certain facts. I was not willing to stipulate that Cruz's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of Cruz's birth. I told ALJ Masin that Cruz had the burden to prove that fact. Professor Victor Williams told Masin the same. He blew our refusal to so stipulate off with some nonsense about the internet and just went ahead as if the Objectors agreed with him. I fail to see how the internet has anything to do with Cruz's burden of proof in the ballot challenge, especially when the Objectors were not willing to stipulate to that fact. Also, the reason why Masin wanted us to so stipulate is that he had his decision already written with those facts in it and if we did not so stipulate, we messed up the works for him.

It is as if Apuzzo still has not learned who bears the burden of proof (and what constitutes admissible evidence).

Still no indication whether Apuzzo (or Williams) will seek judicial review.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 6214
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #36 by Notorial Dissent » Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:11 pm

It's almost like Blovario never went to law skool or covered rules of evidence, as in if you can't prove it it ain't so.

They're birfers, of course one of them will file an appeal, if they haven't figured it out by now they'll keep right on going until they realize what it will cost to file at USSC. I don't think Blovario will put his name to it, too afraid of sanctions, but I'm betting he'll ghost write.


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: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #37 by bob » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:47 pm

Williams' HuffPo blog: Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz: The Daughter of Ninth Circuit Judge Joseph T. Sneed’s Unfortunate Dalliance with Genuine Extremism:
Personal Disclosure: An Exceptionally and Personally High Regard for the Father of Carly Fiorina (nee Cara Carleton Sneed).

While a first-year law student at University of California-Hastings in San Francisco, I had had the honor of clerking (externing) for Ms. Fiorini’s father, the great Ninth Circuit- U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Joseph T. Sneed, III (1920- 2008).

"Clerking" and "externing" are two very different things. A post-law-school clerkship with a 9th Circuit judge is extremely prestigious; it often leads to even greater things, like a SCOTUS clerkship, or a plum DOJ job, or a professorship.

Externing for a circuit judge (over the summer, as first years are typically in class for the entire first year), while a nice feather in one's cap, is hardly something to brag about over 25 years later.

Too, also: Williams graduated from Hastings in 1990; Sneed took senior status in 1987. Unless Williams was externing in his first semester of law school ( :roll: ), Sneed had assumed senior status by the time Williams worked for him.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #38 by bob » Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:54 pm

P&E: Exclusive: Presidential Write-In Candidate Victor Williams Now Represented by Atty. Mario Apuzzo:
IN CONTINUING CHALLENGE TO ELIGIBILITY OF TED CRUZ

Washington, DC law professor and write-in presidential candidate Victor Williams, who filed a ballot challenge in late March to the candidacy of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in the state of New Jersey, will be represented by Atty. Mario Appuzo in his efforts going forward.

In an email received by The Post & Email on Friday morning, Williams reported that Apuzzo’s emergency appeal to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court following an unsuccessful ballot challenge on April 11 was denied out of hand. “Mario twice asked the App Division of Superior Court for an Emergent Hearing,” Williams wrote. “Apparently one does not get a panel but just one judge for such an application. Mario was denied by the same judge. But an objector favoring Mr. Cruz and objecting to Mr. Kasich’s petitions won such a hearing. So yesterday Mario went to the N.J. to the Supreme Court asking for an Emergent Hearing.”

:thumbs:


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 39039
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #39 by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Apr 29, 2016 4:06 pm

bob wrote:Williams' HuffPo blog: Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz: The Daughter of Ninth Circuit Judge Joseph T. Sneed’s Unfortunate Dalliance with Genuine Extremism:
Personal Disclosure: An Exceptionally and Personally High Regard for the Father of Carly Fiorina (nee Cara Carleton Sneed).

While a first-year law student at University of California-Hastings in San Francisco, I had had the honor of clerking (externing) for Ms. Fiorini’s father, the great Ninth Circuit- U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Joseph T. Sneed, III (1920- 2008).

"Clerking" and "externing" are two very different things. A post-law-school clerkship with a 9th Circuit judge is extremely prestigious; it often leads to even greater things, like a SCOTUS clerkship, or a plum DOJ job, or a professorship.

Externing for a circuit judge (over the summer, as first years are typically in class for the entire first year), while a nice feather in one's cap, is hardly something to brag about over 25 years later.

Too, also: Williams graduated from Hastings in 1990; Sneed took senior status in 1987. Unless Williams was externing in his first semester of law school ( :roll: ), Sneed had assumed senior status by the time Williams worked for him.

Beyond that, Judge Sneed was a humorless prick. He lived up to his name, although back then I called him Judge Sneered.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #40 by bob » Fri Apr 29, 2016 6:47 pm

Williams reported that Apuzzo’s emergency appeal to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court following an unsuccessful ballot challenge on April 11 was denied out of hand. “Mario twice asked the App Division of Superior Court for an Emergent Hearing,” Williams wrote. “Apparently one does not get a panel but just one judge for such an application. Mario was denied by the same judge. . . . So yesterday Mario went to the N.J. to the Supreme Court asking for an Emergent Hearing[/highlight].”

Apuzzo (at WFP):
[T]hings are going quite well.

That Apuzzo: always winning! :thumbs:


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #41 by bob » Fri Apr 29, 2016 7:31 pm

P&E: Exclusive: Atty. Mario Apuzzo Provides Update on Cruz Eligibility Challenges in New Jersey:
SAYS JUDGE BASED DECISION ON “TRANSFORMATIONAL COCKTAIL”

* * *

On Friday Apuzzo related that New Jersey Appellate Division Judge John C. Kennedy twice denied his request for an Emergent Hearing in the Cruz eligibility matter with the rejoinder that “there is enough time” between now and June 7, the date of the New Jersey primary, to properly hear and adjudicate it.

Apuzzo said that Kennedy’s response was baffling.
You file a motion, and the other side can oppose it; then the judge has to grant it or deny it. Then you have to do briefs. The point is that we are not asking for a stay of the ballot because they’ve been printed already. When we argued the Obama case [in 2012], there was no issue about a stay; you accelerate the case because there’s no time. This time around, the judge said, “You didn’t get a stay,” but we didn’t ask for a stay; we’re asking for an acceleration. The ballots are already printed.

So we did that, and he still denied it again.

It was the same thing when he said that there’s no “irreparable injury” shown and we haven’t shown a “likelihood of success.” This does not involve sending briefs or anything; it’s just an application, and it’s very brief, very minimal. The only time that the Appellate Court looks at whether or not you have a likelihood of success or irreparable injury is when you’re doing a trial. On the eve of trial, you submit an Emergent Motion; you’re trying to get out of the trial somehow; you want the Appellate Court to issue some kind of order. Under those circumstances, the court looks at what the likelihood of success is and whether or not there’s irreparable damage.

* * *

Let’s say someone is going be evicted from his apartment and has tried everything with the lower court. Now he files an Emergent Motion; the sheriff is coming in three days, and he says, “Oh, I don’t have anyplace to go; they’re going to throw me in the street; I’ll end up in the shelter where they’ll do terrible things to me…I have children.” So now, there’s no trial or anything; it’s not as if the court is going to look at the likelihood of success. They just look to see if something’s going to happen before and if you have time to handle it.

The only event that’s going to happen here is that there’s going to an election. Asking for a stay of the election would be absurd. With Obama, I filed the same thing; I said, “You have to immediately do this,” and the court issued an order saying, “This appeal is accelerated. File your brief by this day, and then oral argument” before the primary. So we did the same thing this time, and the judge said, “You didn’t ask for a stay” and then said something about “likelihood of success” without having any of the briefs or arguments.

How could Judge Kennedy say “the likelihood of success” when they don’t have any of the arguments? They don’t have the transcript of the hearing, and they have none of the briefs. The only thing they have is Judge Masin’s decision and the Secretary of State’s affirmation of it; she didn’t add anything to it.

When you read Masin’s decision, you’ll notice that he doesn’t make one reference to one point that I raised in my brief or during oral argument.

* * *

Apuzzo said he contacted Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who is also New Jersey’s Secretary of State, to obtain a stay in accordance with Judge Kennedy’s response to his request for an Emergent Motion and was told, “We don’t do stays.” Apuzzo said he responded to Guadagno’s office, “I know that, but the judge said I have to get a stay.” “So they didn’t know what to do; they contacted the New Jersey attorney general and gave me a letter; Secretary of State Guadano wrote me a letter saying, ‘Dear Mr. Apuzzo, we don’t issue stays, and it’s denied,’” Apuzzo said. “That’s all I needed.”

Glad that's been clarified. :roll: (There's more Apuzzian verbal diarrhea at the link.)


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 6214
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #42 by Notorial Dissent » Fri Apr 29, 2016 10:20 pm

So many words, so VERY LITTLE content, wonder if that had anything to do with him being denied?? :rotflmao: :rotflmao: So Blovario is currently employed, must be a change of pace thing, or else he got tired of ghost writing.


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
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 4027
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #43 by Sam the Centipede » Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:20 am

I love the way the Post & Email proudly labels another drecksplurge as "Exclusive!". Of course these crappiles are "Exclusive!" - nobody outside the dwindling birther community is interested in that nonsense.

My only point of curiosity is wondering how Mario will spin the inevitable smackdown as another Apuzzo WIN!



User avatar
bob
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #44 by bob » Thu May 05, 2016 12:31 pm

Williams' blog:
Know that the campaign's New Jersey legal team will continue the appeal of Williams v. Cruz.

The litigation is not "mooted" by Ted Cruz's decision to suspend his campaign. The past injuries that Professor Williams suffered as a "competitor candidate" are still at issue and the likelihood that the harm will re-occur in future is very high.

Our legal team has now formally appealed the New Jersey Secretary of State's erroneous decision (to affirm the administrative hearing officer's conflicted ruling) that Mr. Cruz was a "natural born [American] citizen. Williams v. Cruz is now before the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. Even if Professor Williams suspends his campaign prior to the New Jersey June 7 primary, the litigation will continue.

Williams legal "standing" was perfected at the time he filed objections to Mr. Cruz's signature petitions.

The legal "team" being Apuzzo and Apuzzo's ego.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 39039
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #45 by Sterngard Friegen » Thu May 05, 2016 12:56 pm

It will be a win when Blovario's appeal is dismissed as moot.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #46 by bob » Fri May 06, 2016 1:45 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:It will be a win when Blovario's appeal is dismissed as moot.

:fingerwag: :

P&E: Two Republican Candidates Suspend Campaigns, but a Third Has Not Conceded:
CLAIMS CASE AGAINST CRUZ’S ELIGIBILITY “NOT MOOTED”

On Wednesday night, write-in Republican candidate Victor Williams advised The Post & Email that he was not conceding the 2016 election despite Donald Trump’s decisive primary win in Indiana and the suspension of the campaigns of Ted Cruz and John Kasich.

* * *

“In faithfulness of the tens of thousands of supporters of this campaign, I can not in good faith so concede,” Williams told The Post & Email on Wednesday evening, referring to Cruz’s and Kasich’s decisions to suspend their campaigns. Williams indicated that he issued a statement on his website to that effect.

Williams is concerned that although Cruz is no longer actively campaigning, Trump, as the presumptive Republican nominee, might select as his running mate an individual whose “natural born” status could be in question.

* * *

A hearing with Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin was held on April 11, when Apuzzo represented three registered voters and Williams argued his own case. The following day, Masin’s 26-page opinion indicated that he found “the more persuasive argument” made by Cruz’s attorney, Shalom Stone, to be that a person born anywhere in the world to one citizen-parent overrides the traditional interpretation that a “natural born Citizen” is born in the United States.

On Thursday morning, Williams further advised The Post & Email, “Mario and I have decided to continue the appeal of Williams v. Cruz. The case is not ‘mooted’ (it is not ‘moot’ or over) by Cruz’s suspension.”


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #47 by bob » Mon May 16, 2016 2:14 am

Apuzzo is being coy about the present official status of his case in the courts (hint: it is doomed), but Apuzzo isn't too busy for the P&E's comments section:
Bryan Olson wrote:There is a serious issue of honesty here. Mr. Apuzzo told the Post & Email, about ALJ Jeff. S. Masin:

“He didn’t address our unwillingness to stipulate, and when he issued his decision he said, ‘The parties stipulated that Cruz was born to a citizen mother,’ which is not true.”

That sounds bad. Mr. Apuzzo not only disagrees with the Court, he tells us that the Court falsified the history of the case. That’s a big deal.
I’ve read ALJ Masin’s decision, and I encourage readers and reporters of the Post & Email to look it up and read it too. It does not mention any stipulation. Mr. Apuzzo lied to you.

Apuzzo wrote:I have already addressed Bryan Gene Olson, who posts as brygenon at the Fogbow, on his frivolous point. Mr. Olson does not understand how facts are proved during a hearing or trial. I have advised him that there was no plenary hearing before or any certifications or affidavits presented to New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin. So I asked him from where did ALJ Masin get his facts? Mr. Olson simply cannot produce the evidence upon which ALJ relied to conclude that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen parent. He still has not been able to answer this question, but rather choses to repeat his stupid point in the comments section here.

The petitioners object to Ted Cruz being placed on the New Jersey primary ballot because he was born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States which they contend prevents him from being a natural born citizen. Cruz counters that even though he was born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, because he was born to a U.S. citizen mother, he is a natural born citizen. Cruz relies upon being born to a U.S. citizen mother to make him a natural born citizen. But Cruz offers no evidence that he was born to a U.S. citizen mother.

The issue before New Jersey ALJ was whether Cruz was a natural born citizen because he admitted that he was born in a foreign country (Canada). Cruz maintains that he is a natural born citizen because even though he was born in a foreign country, he was born to at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen. He maintains that while he was born to a Cuban father, he was born to a U.S. citizen mother. Hence, assuming for sake of argument the correctness of Cruz’s theory that a child born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent was not only a naturalized “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” but also an Article II “natural born citizen,” the issue is whether Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen parent, a fact to which neither Professor Victor Williams nor I were willing to stipulate after ALJ Masin asked us to.

Given Cruz’s reliance upon being born to a U.S. citizen mother, ALJ Masin asked the parties to stipulate that Cruz was born in Canada, to a Cuban father and a U.S. citizen mother, saying that the parties so stipulated in the Pennsylvania case of Elliott v. Cruz. I informed the court that I was not willing to stipulate that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother, that there was a public dispute whether that was true, and that Cruz had the burden to prove that. Professor Williams made the same argument. Cruz’s lawyer responded that ALJ Masin had already ruled in Purpura and Moran v. Obama that Obama had no burden to prove anything and so Cruz also did not have any such burden. ALJ Masin responded that Cruz had already stipulated in the Pennsylvania case that he was born in Canada and that he (ALJ Masin) could not just ignore that, and that he could take judicial notice that no one, including Cruz, disputed that Cruz was born in Canada. He then moved the hearing to the debate on the meaning of a natural born citizen and whether Cruz meets that definition, without stating what he was going to do with the fact that the petitioners were not willing to stipulate that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother and that Cruz had not presented any evidence to the court that he was born to a U.S. citizen mother. So, given that ALJ Masin in his decision found that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother, with there being no evidence before the court proving that fact and having asked the petitioners to stipulate to that fact, ALJ Masin acted as though Professor Williams and I had stipulated to that fact when in fact we never did.

Additionally, even if Cruz could prove that he was born in Canada, but to a U.S. citizen parent, that does not make him an Article II common law natural born citizen. Rather, it only makes him a statutory naturalized “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress and consequently not eligible to be President or Vice-President.

Finally, on the meaning of a natural born citizen, after accepting without any such evidence before him that Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, ALJ Masin told us that the Framers drank a transformational cocktail containing an intoxicating mixture of the English common law and English Parliamentary naturalization Acts to produce the “constitutional” definition of a natural born citizen in 1787.He held that “a child born outside the United States to a non-diplomat or non-military citizen of the United States,” whether “a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the contemplation of the Constitution. ”Initial Decision, p. 25. The effects of that intoxicating cocktail and the definition of a natural born citizen that it produced is to render all of our past and present Congress’s naturalization Acts unconstitutional and virtually all of our U.S. Supreme Court citizenship cases wrongly decided, not to mention it would make Princess Grace Kelly’s and many other foreign characters’ lineal descendants potentially (meeting the age and residency requirements) eligible to be President.

I have already explained all this to Mr. Olson. But Mr. Olson’s mission is not to educate himself on what a natural born citizen is or whether Ted Cruz meets that definition. Rather, his mission is to go about the internet and smear my efforts at addressing this most important constitutional issue.

Notice how Apuzzo didn't actually address the one contention actually raised. And, over at WFP, Apuzzo "explained":
ALJ Masin asked the parties to stipulate that Cruz was born in Canada, to a Cuban father and a U.S. citizen mother, saying that the parties so stipulated in the Pennsylvania case of Elliott v. Cruz. I informed the court that I was not willing to stipulate that Cruz was born to a U.S. citizen mother, that there was a public dispute whether that was true, and that Cruz had the burden to prove that. Professor Williams made the same argument. Cruz's lawyer responded that ALJ Masin had already ruled in Purpura and Moran v. Obama that Obama had no burden to prove anything and so Cruz also did not have any such burden. ALJ Masin responded that Cruz had already stipulated in the Pennsylvania case that he was born in Canada and that he (ALJ Masin) could not just ignore that, and that he could take judicial notice that no one, including Cruz, disputed that Cruz was born in Canada.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #48 by bob » Tue May 31, 2016 4:06 pm

Daily Beast: Meet the Oddballs Backing Hillary Clinton—and Donald Trump:
A pro poker player. A TV writer. And a Ted Cruz birther. These are just some of the, um, unusual individuals bankrolling Hillary and the Donald’s campaigns.

* * *

Changes of heart

For instance, Victor Williams, a law professor at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., last year donated $400 to Clinton’s campaign as a “dutiful Democrat.”

But he now says he’s “a Trump man”—and has donated $5,400 to Trump’s campaign, $2,700 toward the primary and $2,700 toward the general election.

Another way he’s trying to help Trump: He’s been the main force behind a so-far-unsuccessful New Jersey lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility to be president. Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen living in Canada when she gave birth to her son. (Presidents must be “natural-born citizens.”)

In order to have legal standing for the case, Williams himself also launched a long-shot presidential bid.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: N.J. ballot challenge

Post #49 by bob » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:48 pm

Daily Beast: Meet the Oddballs Backing Hillary Clinton—and Donald Trump:
In order to have legal standing for the case, [Victor] Williams himself also launched a long-shot presidential bid.

Color me shocked: Wash. Times: Lawyer says Trump right to chide judge over ‘ridiculous’ ruling:
An activist lawyer on Monday accused the Seattle judge who halted President Trump’s extreme vetting executive order of a “dangerous political stunt,” saying the president was right in chiding the judge for a “ridiculous” ruling.

Victor Williams, a D.C.-area lawyer and law professor who has been a defender of presidents of both parties, said U.S. District Judge James L. Robart is the latest victim of Trump derangement syndrome, “joining the American media [and] the rest of the political elites in waging war” on Mr. Trump and his agenda.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2


Return to “State Ballot Challenges”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests