2016 Ill. ballot challenge

User avatar
ProudObot
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:46 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#26

Post by ProudObot » Thu Feb 04, 2016 7:20 pm

Off Topic
If at some point SCOTUS agrees to rule re nbc and agrees with what we know to be right, will the issue ever be truly resolved? The usual suspects will, of course, go through the litany of claiming the ruling was because of fraud, corruption, etc. but then what? Any thoughts... maybe in another thread?



User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 3079
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: About 40,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Occupation: Senior Scheduling Manager
Chemtrails Program
Human Factors and Behavioral Sciences Division

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#27

Post by Dallasite » Thu Feb 04, 2016 8:44 pm

Of course that wouldn't resolve it for these nutjobs. Like any other ruling they don't agree with, they will simply say the court was wrong, was threatened, bribed, etc.


"I drank what?!?!" - Soctates, 399 BC

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#28

Post by bob » Thu Feb 04, 2016 8:48 pm

Dallasite wrote:Of course that wouldn't resolve it for these nutjobs. Like any other ruling they don't agree with, they will simply say the court was wrong, was threatened, bribed, etc.
Exactly: Apuzzo already handwaived away the board's adverse ruling by calling them political operatives who do their masters' bidding. Any adverse ruling from any authority will be dismissed by birthers with the same conspiracy theory.

And of course Taitz has her own theory that the executive branch has installed operatives in the chambers of every judge, and in every government agency. :crazy:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7552
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#29

Post by Flatpointhigh » Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:16 pm

I'm discovering that there a lot of Americans who agree. They are called "patriots"



"It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He only made male and female, and He gave them the Earth as their inheritance."- Thomas Paine, Forward to Agrarian Justice
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5854
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#30

Post by Sam the Centipede » Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:33 am

:confused: ;) Would you accept a change in your wording?
Flatpointhigh wrote:I'm discovering that there a lot of Americans who agree. They are called call themselves "patriots"
:-D



User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7552
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#31

Post by Flatpointhigh » Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:46 am

Sam the Centipede wrote::confused: ;) Would you accept a change in your wording?
Flatpointhigh wrote:I'm discovering that there a lot of Americans who agree. They are called call themselves "patriots"
:-D
why, thank you for the correction :P :thumbs:



"It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He only made male and female, and He gave them the Earth as their inheritance."- Thomas Paine, Forward to Agrarian Justice
Cancer broke me

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 6709
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#32

Post by Northland10 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:21 pm

Dallasite wrote:Of course that wouldn't resolve it for these nutjobs. Like any other ruling they don't agree with, they will simply say the court was wrong, was threatened, bribed, etc.
It's not like the will have read the ruling. Most of these nuts have no idea what Minor or Wong actually say but just repeat the statements from the Putz and others. If SCOTUS actually ruled on the issue, the nuts would not actually read the opinion but only complain about what they think it says.


North-land: of the family 10
UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

noblepa
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#33

Post by noblepa » Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:28 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote::confused: ;) Would you accept a change in your wording?
Flatpointhigh wrote:I'm discovering that there a lot of Americans who agree. They are called call themselves "patriots"
:-D

Isn't being a patriot a little like being famous; if you have to tell people you are, you aren't.


My America already IS great. Sorry about yours, Donald.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#34

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:38 pm

Pretty much like Johnny Drama in Entourage. (The TV series. SPOILER ALERT:
► Show Spoiler



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#35

Post by bob » Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:45 pm

Apuzzo!: The Illinois Board of Elections Got It Wrong: Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born Citizen:
The Illinois Board of Elections recently found that Presidential contender, Senator Ted Cruz, is an Article II “natural born citizen.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted ... b96203f393 . Lawrence Joyce and William Graham objected to Cruz being placed on the presidential primary ballot in Illinois, contending that he is not an Article II natural born citizen. The Board rejected the challenge and found that Cruz “is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth." The Board so found because it said he "did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth." The Board also had the audacity to cavalierly state: “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary." The Board erred. The Board’s ruling is an expression of Congressional Research Service attorney Jack Maskell’s baseless thesis of his definition of a natural born citizen. Not only is Maskell’s definition a fabricated and revisionist definition of a natural born citizen, it also is nonsensical. See Mario Apuzzo, The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen,” http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-f ... ional.html (June 2, 2013) (demonstrates how Maskell’s thesis is erroneous); Mario Apuzzo, The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-c ... w-and.html (July 19, 2013) (same).

* * *

Maskell's definition of a natural born citizen is anything but "traditional" and "historical." Rather, it is a revisionist definition of the clause, a product of the "living constitution" existing in his mind and not that of the Framers. The Maskell argument, among many of its defects, blatantly ignores the text and structure of Article I and II and this constitutional law. Apart from erroneously believing that “at birth” means the same thing as “by birth,” Maskell also ignores that due to one’s birth circumstances one may still need either the Fourteenth Amendment (if born in the United States) or a naturalization Act of Congress (if born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States) to be made a citizen, regardless of whether those positive laws make or adopt one as a citizen at birth or after birth. Wong needed the Fourteenth Amendment to make him a citizen of the United States because while he was born in the United States, he was not born to U.S. citizen parents. Cruz himself needs a naturalization Act of Congress to adopt him as a citizen of the United States birth without which he would have been an alien at birth. In other words, in those cases it is still either the Fourteenth Amendment or a naturalization statute which determines and controls whether someone is or is not a citizen, regardless of whether the Amendment or statute makes or adopts one a citizen at birth or after birth. The need for the Amendment or statute does not disappear simply because the Amendment or statute itself makes or adopts one as a citizen at birth. If not for that Amendment or naturalization statute, one being made or adopted a citizen at birth would be an alien. As to persons born out of the United States, see, for example, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (explained that one born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, not being a citizen at common law can only be a naturalized citizen through a naturalization Act of Congress and that if it were not for a naturalization Act of Congress, he or she would be an alien and not a citizen); Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961) (explained that if a child is not born in the country, the child needs a naturalization Act of the sovereign authority to make that child for all intents and purposes a citizen and without such naturalization the child would be an alien); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) (a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be a citizen of the United States only if Congress allows it through one of its naturalization acts and such person therefore becomes a citizen of the United States “at birth” through naturalization without which the person would be an alien); Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (“There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.”). Miller did not say for persons born out of the United States, like it did for persons born in the United States who become at once citizens of the United States, that they did not need naturalization. On the contrary, it said that those persons become citizens of the United States “by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” So, it is not “by birth” alone. Rather, it is “by birth as provided by Acts of Congress.” All these decisions by our U.S. Supreme Court demonstrate that, regardless of whether one is made or adopted a citizen by the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalized at birth or after birth by a naturalization Act of Congress, one is still made and adopted as a citizen by the Amendment or naturalized by the statute without which the person would be an alien.

Maskell argues that someone who became a citizen of the United States at birth is not a naturalized citizen of the United States because Congress tells us so in its naturalization statutes. He points to 8 U.S.C. sec. 1101(a) (23) and provides this quote: “The term ‘naturalization’ means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” Maskell errs on several fronts. First, Maskell leaves out the beginning part of statutory definition which provides: “(a) As used in this chapter-- . . . (23) The term ‘naturalization means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” So Congress provided that definition of naturalization only for purposes of a chapter in its own naturalization statutes and not for purposes of the Constitution. Second, Congress’s definition is not for the purpose of demonstrating how the Constitution defines naturalization, which as we have seen is much broader than how Congress defines it for purposes of its own statutes. Needless to say, the Constitution controls what the definition of naturalization is, not Congress. Congress could not through such acts change who the Constitution views as being naturalized. Again, the Constitution relies upon the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar to define a natural born citizen. Under that common law, all children born in a country to parents who were it citizens were citizens as were the parents. These were the “natives, or natural-born citizens.” Minor. Minor also explained that under that common law all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be naturalized as citizens of the United States under the naturalization Acts of Congress. As we can see, the Constitution’s definition of naturalization is broader than that provided by Congress in its naturalization Acts. Under the Constitution, anyone who is not a natural born citizen is in need of naturalization if that person wants to be a citizen of the United States.

Maskell also argues that Cruz is a natural born citizen under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a naturalization Act of Congress that adopts children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents. But that naturalization Act was not around when the Framers wrote the Constitution in 1787. It therefore cannot possibly determine the definition of a natural born citizen. Furthermore, the statute is a naturalization Act of Congress passed by it under its naturalization powers. It therefore cannot possibly make anyone a natural born citizen. Finally, the plain and clear text of the Act demonstrates that it adopts persons to be "citizens" of the United States, not "natural born citizens" of the United States. Hence, the statute does not do what Cruz supporters wish it to do. On the other hand, it the statue could be interpreted to make anyone born out of the United States a natural born citizen, then there is a constitutional question whether Congress has such power under its power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.
Much Apuzzian :yankyank: snipped. (Apuzzo does not understand that brevity is the key to persuasion.)

Ob. ORYR/BR comment:
Bill [Graham, an Illinois challenger] wrote:Attorney Apuzzo defends Graham objections at IL Board of Elections, shows defects in Maskell’s opinion (CRS, Jan 2016), and writes defining opinion on the meaning of natural born citizen. RNC take note; you have two ineligible candidates who cannot legally accept Federal funds. Mr. Trump may also be interested in this.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 11948
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#36

Post by Dolly » Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:08 am

bob wrote:Apuzzo!: Sekrit Stuffs!
The Illinois Board of Elections Got It Wrong: Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born Citizen:
The Illinois Board of Elections recently found that Presidential contender, Senator Ted Cruz, is an Article II “natural born citizen.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted ... b96203f393 . Lawrence Joyce and William Graham objected to Cruz being placed on the presidential primary ballot in Illinois, contending that he is not an Article II natural born citizen. The Board rejected the challenge and found that Cruz “is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth." The Board so found because it said he "did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth." The Board also had the audacity to cavalierly state: “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary." The Board erred. The Board’s ruling is an expression of Congressional Research Service attorney Jack Maskell’s baseless thesis of his definition of a natural born citizen. Not only is Maskell’s definition a fabricated and revisionist definition of a natural born citizen, it also is nonsensical. See Mario Apuzzo, The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen,” http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-f ... ional.html (June 2, 2013) (demonstrates how Maskell’s thesis is erroneous); Mario Apuzzo, The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-c ... w-and.html (July 19, 2013) (same).

* * *

Maskell's definition of a natural born citizen is anything but "traditional" and "historical." Rather, it is a revisionist definition of the clause, a product of the "living constitution" existing in his mind and not that of the Framers. The Maskell argument, among many of its defects, blatantly ignores the text and structure of Article I and II and this constitutional law. Apart from erroneously believing that “at birth” means the same thing as “by birth,” Maskell also ignores that due to one’s birth circumstances one may still need either the Fourteenth Amendment (if born in the United States) or a naturalization Act of Congress (if born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States) to be made a citizen, regardless of whether those positive laws make or adopt one as a citizen at birth or after birth. Wong needed the Fourteenth Amendment to make him a citizen of the United States because while he was born in the United States, he was not born to U.S. citizen parents. Cruz himself needs a naturalization Act of Congress to adopt him as a citizen of the United States birth without which he would have been an alien at birth. In other words, in those cases it is still either the Fourteenth Amendment or a naturalization statute which determines and controls whether someone is or is not a citizen, regardless of whether the Amendment or statute makes or adopts one a citizen at birth or after birth. The need for the Amendment or statute does not disappear simply because the Amendment or statute itself makes or adopts one as a citizen at birth. If not for that Amendment or naturalization statute, one being made or adopted a citizen at birth would be an alien. As to persons born out of the United States, see, for example, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (explained that one born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, not being a citizen at common law can only be a naturalized citizen through a naturalization Act of Congress and that if it were not for a naturalization Act of Congress, he or she would be an alien and not a citizen); Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961) (explained that if a child is not born in the country, the child needs a naturalization Act of the sovereign authority to make that child for all intents and purposes a citizen and without such naturalization the child would be an alien); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) (a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be a citizen of the United States only if Congress allows it through one of its naturalization acts and such person therefore becomes a citizen of the United States “at birth” through naturalization without which the person would be an alien); Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (“There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.”). Miller did not say for persons born out of the United States, like it did for persons born in the United States who become at once citizens of the United States, that they did not need naturalization. On the contrary, it said that those persons become citizens of the United States “by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” So, it is not “by birth” alone. Rather, it is “by birth as provided by Acts of Congress.” All these decisions by our U.S. Supreme Court demonstrate that, regardless of whether one is made or adopted a citizen by the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalized at birth or after birth by a naturalization Act of Congress, one is still made and adopted as a citizen by the Amendment or naturalized by the statute without which the person would be an alien.

Maskell argues that someone who became a citizen of the United States at birth is not a naturalized citizen of the United States because Congress tells us so in its naturalization statutes. He points to 8 U.S.C. sec. 1101(a) (23) and provides this quote: “The term ‘naturalization’ means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” Maskell errs on several fronts. First, Maskell leaves out the beginning part of statutory definition which provides: “(a) As used in this chapter-- . . . (23) The term ‘naturalization means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” So Congress provided that definition of naturalization only for purposes of a chapter in its own naturalization statutes and not for purposes of the Constitution. Second, Congress’s definition is not for the purpose of demonstrating how the Constitution defines naturalization, which as we have seen is much broader than how Congress defines it for purposes of its own statutes. Needless to say, the Constitution controls what the definition of naturalization is, not Congress. Congress could not through such acts change who the Constitution views as being naturalized. Again, the Constitution relies upon the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar to define a natural born citizen. Under that common law, all children born in a country to parents who were it citizens were citizens as were the parents. These were the “natives, or natural-born citizens.” Minor. Minor also explained that under that common law all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be naturalized as citizens of the United States under the naturalization Acts of Congress. As we can see, the Constitution’s definition of naturalization is broader than that provided by Congress in its naturalization Acts. Under the Constitution, anyone who is not a natural born citizen is in need of naturalization if that person wants to be a citizen of the United States.

Maskell also argues that Cruz is a natural born citizen under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a naturalization Act of Congress that adopts children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents. But that naturalization Act was not around when the Framers wrote the Constitution in 1787. It therefore cannot possibly determine the definition of a natural born citizen. Furthermore, the statute is a naturalization Act of Congress passed by it under its naturalization powers. It therefore cannot possibly make anyone a natural born citizen. Finally, the plain and clear text of the Act demonstrates that it adopts persons to be "citizens" of the United States, not "natural born citizens" of the United States. Hence, the statute does not do what Cruz supporters wish it to do. On the other hand, it the statue could be interpreted to make anyone born out of the United States a natural born citizen, then there is a constitutional question whether Congress has such power under its power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.
Much Apuzzian :yankyank: snipped. (Apuzzo does not understand that brevity is the key to persuasion.)
<snip>.
For the portion that was posted here, I firmly pressed the Arrow Down key to get to the end without reading any of it. :-D

But I do appreciate people posting what is going on... I just don't care to read Apuzzo's verbal diarrhea.


Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10187
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#37

Post by Notorial Dissent » Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:56 am

Puzzi does not understand the concept of brevity, but even if he did, he is still too fond of the sound of his own voice to be brief. He is also a member of the school that beleives that even though you don't really have anything to say, say it at great length.


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
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#38

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:12 am

Maybe it was looooong and poorly written, but Apuzzo won!



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#39

Post by bob » Fri Feb 19, 2016 1:26 am

"For completeness," cross-posting Loren's update:
Loren wrote:Bad news for Ted Cruz: his eligibility for president is going to court
The Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago has agreed to hear a lawsuit on Sen. Ted Cruz's eligibility for president — virtually ensuring that the issue dominates the news in the run-up to the South Carolina primary.

Cruz was born in Canada to a US citizen mother and a noncitizen father. The Constitution requires presidents be "natural-born citizens," but what exactly that requires hasn't been settled in court.

Now, perhaps, it will be. The lawsuit in Illinois aims to resolve the question by challenging Cruz's eligibility for the presidency. It was filed by Lawrence Joyce, an attorney who has told local media that he supports Dr. Ben Carson and has had no connection with the Trump campaign.

"Joyce said his concern is that the eligibility issue lie unresolved during Republican primaries, thus letting the Democrats take advantage of it after a potential Cruz nomination, when it’d be too late," reports The Washington Examiner.
The hearing is tomorrow. Note that this is the same Lawrence Joyce whose elections board complaint was dismissed a couple of weeks ago.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#40

Post by bob » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:39 pm

PPS on Teh Facebook:
BREAKING! The Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago has agreed to hear a lawsuit on Sen. Ted Cruz's eligibility for president — virtually ensuring that the issue dominates the news in the runup to the South Carolina primary.
Mary Taylor wrote:Why on earth did this not Happen with The current person in the house of White?
PPS wrote:Simple: YOUR CONGRESSMAN. [ . . . ] And EVERYONE else's congressman - and the Supreme Court. ALL refused to do anything with America's first "black" president. See it now? Carl Gallups and Mike Zullo have been right all along - regardless of the naysayers and mockers.
:yankyank:

And of course:
Gallups wrote:The term, "Natural Born Citizen" has no meaning whatsoever if it can mean someone born in another country and given birth-citizenship in that country, born to someone living in that country (not just visiting), and only one parent is a US citizen at the time of that birth. This certainly applies to Ted Cruz - and perhaps even to "you know who."
:yankyank:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#41

Post by bob » Fri Feb 19, 2016 3:47 pm

Chi. Bus.: Is Cruz eligible to be president? An Illinois judge may weigh in:
An Illinois judge on Friday said she would decide next month whether she had jurisdiction over a voter's complaint that Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz should not be on the state's primary ballot because he was born in Canada.

* * *

Circuit Court Judge Maureen Ward Kirby said she was not sure she had jurisdiction, and set a March 1 hearing for arguments on whether to dismiss the complaint.

* * *

The Illinois primary is March 15 but early voting has already begun.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26189
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#42

Post by Foggy » Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:10 pm

Mary Taylor wrote:Why on earth did this not Happen with The current person in the house of White?
Because fuck you is why. :mad2:


The point of no return is no longer even visible in your rearview mirror. :-

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#43

Post by bob » Fri Feb 19, 2016 4:13 pm

USA Today: Ted Cruz campaign wants Illinois citizenship suit dismissed:
Sharee Langenstein, an attorney for Cruz, said in court Friday it is "very, very clear" the Cook County court doesn't have jurisdiction to hear the case because state law stipulates the candidate be served with the complaint. Joyce, a pharmacist and attorney from Poplar Grove, Ill., failed to serve Cruz, whose home address is listed in his petition to be placed on the state's ballot, Langenstein said.

* * *

Judge Maureen Ward Kirby set a March 1 court date to hear arguments on the motion to dismiss. Joyce, who works the midnight shift at a hospital pharmacy, told the judge he wasn't available for arguments before then because of work commitments. The Illinois primary is March 15 and early voting has already begun.

Despite the close timing, Joyce said it is worth letting his complaint play out.

"The nomination doesn't take place until July," Joyce said. "So if a determination is made after the primary that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president then certainly it would be incumbent upon the Republican National Committee not allow the name of Ted Cruz to be entered at the convention in July."
:roll:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#44

Post by bob » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:56 am

He, LDS, reminded his readers (all three of them) that Joyce was Berg's co-counsel for Hollister v. Obama -- the "agent provocateur" tongue-lashing case.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24203
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#45

Post by bob » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:55 pm

Detroit News: Ted Cruz moves to shut down 'birther' suit:
The Republican presidential hopeful on Friday asked a state court judge in Chicago to dismiss a case challenging his eligibility for office. Sidestepping a constitutional defense for now, Cruz argued the complaint had been served improperly by e-mail instead of by registered or certified mail.

* * *

Joyce "is perfectly capable of reading the Election Code and following its clear requirements," Cruz’s lawyer, Sharee Langenstein, said in the filing.

* * *

Joyce, a lawyer for 25 years, said he frequently files friend-of-the-court briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of anti-abortion groups.

* * *

The case is Joyce v. Board of Elections of the State of Illinois, 2016OEL000011, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department (Chicago).


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14721
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#46

Post by Reality Check » Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:09 pm

Joyce's case was tossed for lack of jurisdiction today.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKCN0W3578
An Illinois judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit that sought to have Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz removed from the state's primary election ballot on a technicality, saying it had not been properly served on the Board of Elections.

Cook County Circuit Court Judge Maureen Ward Kirby in Chicago found that she did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiff, Lawrence Joyce, did not properly file his petition for judicial review.

Joyce, a lawyer and a pharmacist from the distant Chicago suburb of Poplar Grove, initially filed a complaint in January with the state Board of Elections. When the board rejected the complaint, he filed the lawsuit seeking judicial review in Cook County.

Kirby ruled that Joyce should have served the complaint directly to Cruz and the members of the election board, not to their lawyers. :snippity:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34429
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: 2016 Ill. ballot challenge

#47

Post by realist » Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:59 pm

I'm SHOCKED!! :P


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”