Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 143 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 5496
Location: Southwest of down east
Occupation: Food critic
realist wrote:
GreatGrey wrote:
Bumped, cuz peeps need to pay attention to this one.

I'm trying to figure out why. It was tossed for failure to state a claim a few days after being filed.
While I attributed the speed to the "Rocket Docket" above, there's another reason in play.

A federal filing in forma pauperis triggers prescreening by the judge. If the filer is an inmate (not the situation here, AFAIK), the judge is obligated to do an immediate screening to deep-six repetitive and abusive jailhouse filings. If the litigant is not an inmate but requests in forma pauperis status, the judge has a little more lattitude, but is nevertheless put on special notice to screen for early dismissal, if appropriate.

In this case, the Judge cited, as justification for the quick dismissal, 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii):
Sucky Formatter wrote:

(e)(1) The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal—
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
So that's the reason why it was dismissed so quickly, but in arriving at the finding that the complaint failed to state a claim, the judge went right to the heart of the two-citizen-parent "theory" and reached the question of whether the birther's pet theory is good law upon which a viable claim can be based.

Anyway, what's the harm in another bump?

_________________
Hope springs eternal within the human uniboob. - Thomas Jefferson.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 17104
Occupation: Dick Tater & Lord High Muckety-Muck
As I understand it, the judge sua sponte (hi, Orly!) dumped the case el permanento (with prejudice) just six little days after it was filed. That's what I meant by "movin' along smartly". You don't see cases move that fast every dang day.

And the court dumped it on the merits: The court ruled that the fake imaginary "two citizen parents" rule that doesn't really exist is NOT the law in this great land of ours. It's really, really not the law. And the judge was so sure that it's not the law, he dismissed it WITH PREJUDICE, meaning "and don't come back here no more tryin' to sell me on this bullshit". [-X

It's another ruling by a federal court that Vattelism is a crock of doo doo. I think that's a milestone.

Further, if it gets appealed and upheld, that will certainly be worth watching. I think this is every bit as important as the ALJ's recommendation in Atlanta. This is a federal district judge setting a precedent: "The fake imaginary 'two citizen parents' rule is too stupid to deal with and will be summarily booted out the courthouse door."

This is why, sad to say, the U.S. Supreme Court will never take up the issue. If a District Court thinks the law is so settled that he's safe to dismiss with prejudice and not have it reversed, that's a clue that we're dealing with some really, really settled law.

_________________
Giraffes are insincere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:18 am
Posts: 192
Can we say Amen, now? Oh, likely not. But the ole Paypal button might be gettin a bit rusty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 10413
Foggy wrote:
It's another ruling by a federal court that Vattelism is a crock of doo doo. I think that's a milestone.


It's not a huge precedent, in that it was chucked as being self-evidently a load of bollocks, but it's a nice precedent, for precisely that reason. These cases do not deserve to be litigated. They are garbage clogging up the courts, and the best thing a judge getting one of these idiot lawsuits can do is immediately chuck it.

This is what Malihi should have done in Georgia when it became obvious that only two of the plaintiffs had even a remotely relevant argument and the other was going to put on a clown show of non-expert non-witnesses.

_________________
"I no doubt deserved my enemies but I don't believe I deserved my friends." -- Walt Whitman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Posts: 9593
Location: downstairs
I typed this from the Order:

Quote:
The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const.art. II, 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) ("Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.")' Perkis v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938). Moreover, "those born 'in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' ... have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding...and thus eligible for the presidency." Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale's contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit.

_________________
"When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't really have to do anything, you just let them talk." President Barack Obama, 4/27/2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 5496
Location: Southwest of down east
Occupation: Food critic
Adelante wrote:
I typed this from the Order:

Yup, that's the core of it. As usual, you rock, Addy!

_________________
Hope springs eternal within the human uniboob. - Thomas Jefferson.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 10413
Adelante wrote:
I typed this from the Order:

Quote:
United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) ("Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.")'


I will note that this is not the correct way to abbreviate the case title United States v. Wong Kim Ark. As is the Chinese naming convention, "Wong" is his family name. United States v. Ark is, therefore, like United States v. Bob. Because of the likelihood of confusion in abbreviating the case name, the proper and most commonly used citation is United States v. Wong Kim Ark with no abbreviation. I believe they took this incorrect citation form from the pro se plaintiff.

Bad law clerk! No Blue Book brownie points!

_________________
"I no doubt deserved my enemies but I don't believe I deserved my friends." -- Walt Whitman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:42 am
Posts: 1484
Location: Garage Dubois, Choisy-le-Roi
Occupation: teacher (of English and translation), translator
Adelante wrote:
I typed this from the Order:

Quote:
... not eligible to be President due to their nationalities ...


Wow. Vatellite plural: nationalities. And not at birth, even.

So the court is "conceding" that these three people HAVE nationalities. Yet, IRL only Romney may potentially have Mexican nationality. Obama lost his chance when he was 23, and the window for Paul to claim German nationality through ius sanguinis has long since passed.

But expect some birthers to now start asserting that the court ruled that Obama, Romney and Paul ARE "duel" citizens, even now.

_________________
Ja nigdy nie będę mówił, że Orly Taitz została usunięta z palestry, chyba że, w rzeczywistości, Orly Taitz została usunięta z palestry.
Я никогда не скажу, что Орли Тайц лишилась статуса адвоката - до того момента, когда, на самом деле, Орли Тайц лишилась статуса адвоката.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Posts: 9593
Location: downstairs
If we were to do a judicial tally on rulings that Obama is NBC, (total number of judges), would all of these count? Are there more?

Marion County IN Superior Court?

Indiana Court of Appeals - 3-judge panel

Indiana Supreme Court - 5 Justices

Fourth Circuit VA - 1 Judge

OSAH GA - 1 ALJ
________________________________

Preliminary sub-total - 10 Judges have ruled or concurred

_________________
"When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't really have to do anything, you just let them talk." President Barack Obama, 4/27/2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Posts: 9593
Location: downstairs
Thank you, Loh, for finding this nice thing :hug:

Mods: Shouldn't this thread be in the ballot challenges sub-forum?

_________________
"When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't really have to do anything, you just let them talk." President Barack Obama, 4/27/2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 25639
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
A friend of mine, who sweats these things, has prepared a very nice string cite on the cases that have expressly ruled on President Obama's or Senator McCain's eligibility (rather than dismissing for lack of standing or justiciability). Here it is (so far):

Quote:
Every court and administrative body to consider the issue has held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen who is eligible to service as President. See, e.g., Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”); Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010); Farrar et al v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI (Feb. 3, 2012) (Ga. Office of State Admin. Hearings) (relying on Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels to hold that Obama is natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in the United States); Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama's birth certificate "clearly establishes" his eligibility for office as a "Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama's birth certificate "clearly establishes" his eligibility for office as a "Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Board of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); see also Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63, 66 (“Those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding and thus eligible for the presidency.”) (internal citations omitted).


It's a work in progress, and will obviously get bigger. The lead case is Tisdale's.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)

Realist lives to serve. Foggy does it for the children. I'm in it for the schadenfreude.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Posts: 5718
Location: Glocca Morra
Just cuz I hadn't seen where anyone else had done it, now on Scribd

So Addy won't have to type so much :)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisd ... bama-et-al

.

_________________
"What's it like being an atheist? It's like being the only sober person in a car full of drunks, and they refuse to let you drive." Thomas Jefferson

Birtherism is so ridiculous that I no longer feel obligated to treat proponents w/slightest degree of respect or civility


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 29
I love this string cite. A thing of beauty, - reminds me of Tess' from wayback. Do you think that the Board ruling in New Hampshire should be included? It was on the "merits" (and I use that word loosely), and found Pres O eligible for the ballot, but did not adress the 2-citizen-parent b.s. directly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Posts: 9593
Location: downstairs
Thank you, sweetie :-*

How do you do that? Make it so you can copy and paste? :-?

GreatGrey wrote:
Just cuz I hadn't seen where anyone else had done it, now on Scribd

So Addy won't have to type so much :)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisd ... bama-et-al

.

_________________
"When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't really have to do anything, you just let them talk." President Barack Obama, 4/27/2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 6945
Occupation: retired
Not only is the US v Wong Kim Ark incorrectly shortened or cited, so is the Perkins v Elg . Perkins is missing the 'n' and IIANM, the cite is not for the SCOTUS decision which was decided in 1939.

Quote:
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkins_v._Elg

_________________
Quote:
Research shows that 84.74358 per cent of all statistics are made up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:22 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Posts: 7078
Location: Belize City
Occupation: Visiting doctors.
Bluebook wrote:
I love this string cite. A thing of beauty, - reminds me of Tess' from wayback. Do you think that the Board ruling in New Hampshire should be included? It was on the "merits" (and I use that word loosely), and found Pres O eligible for the ballot, but did not adress the 2-citizen-parent b.s. directly.


NH decided that because The Prez filled out his form, paid his fee, and the check didn't bounce, he was eligible for the ballot. No merits, no SCOTUS cases, plenty of shouting.

_________________
"The future makes fools of us all."

ImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 10413
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
A friend of mine, who sweats these things, has prepared a very nice string cite on the cases that have expressly ruled on President Obama's or Senator McCain's eligibility (rather than dismissing for lack of standing or justiciability). Here it is (so far):

Quote:
see also Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63, 66 (“Those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding and thus eligible for the presidency.”) (internal citations omitted).


It's a work in progress, and will obviously get bigger. The lead case is Tisdale's.


Super minor niggle. When the abbreviated name of the reporter has a component with more than one letter in it, there is a space between the components.

Therefore, Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H. 2008).

Also, it was missing the parenthetical identifying the District Court.

_________________
"I no doubt deserved my enemies but I don't believe I deserved my friends." -- Walt Whitman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 25639
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
I suspect my friend has read Loh's corrections and has already incorporated them in his/her string cite. :-

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)

Realist lives to serve. Foggy does it for the children. I'm in it for the schadenfreude.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 10413
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
I suspect my friend has read Loh's corrections and has already incorporated them in his/her string cite. :-


Hope he didn't just cut and paste, because as is inevitable for a minor correction, I got something wrong myself. I transposed a space and a comma.

_________________
"I no doubt deserved my enemies but I don't believe I deserved my friends." -- Walt Whitman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:27 am
Posts: 2057
Location: Southern Gondwana
Adelante wrote:
If we were to do a judicial tally on rulings that Obama is NBC, (total number of judges), would all of these count? Are there more?

Marion County IN Superior Court?

Indiana Court of Appeals - 3-judge panel

Indiana Supreme Court - 5 Justices

Fourth Circuit VA - 1 Judge

OSAH GA - 1 ALJ
________________________________

Preliminary sub-total - 10 Judges have ruled or concurred

And 10 judges beats one (Putative) Attorney Apuzzo hands down.
Regards ...........Dick


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 25639
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
Apuzzo is a real attorney. He's just a crappy one. So his title should be Crappy Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)

Realist lives to serve. Foggy does it for the children. I'm in it for the schadenfreude.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:42 pm
Posts: 4398
Location: The 808
Occupation: World-class procrastinator and perpetual late-bloomer.
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Apuzzo is a real attorney. He's just a crappy one. So his title should be Crappy Attorney Mario Apuzzo.


OK. Now I haz a confuzzled. Is it Crappy Putative Attorney Mario Apuzzo or Putative Crappy Attorney Mario Apuzzo?

_________________
"And with the advent of LexisNexis and WestLaw, there is no more need for attorneys to spend hours researching. The relevant case law simply comes straight to the computer, ready to be copied to a word processor."
--Larry "Leisure Suit" Klayman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2524
Location: The Little Red Dot
Occupation: ASEAN bureau chief; Keeper of the Bahasa; CSI for Semiconductors
Mikedunford wrote:
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Apuzzo is a real attorney. He's just a crappy one. So his title should be Crappy Attorney Mario Apuzzo.


OK. Now I haz a confuzzled. Is it Crappy Putative Attorney Mario Apuzzo or Putative Crappy Attorney Mario Apuzzo?


Well, we know he's crappy, so it can't be "Putative Crappy." And the Real AttorneysTM here tell me they know he's an attorney, so "Putative Attorney" is out too. Which I guess leaves: Crappy Attorney Mario "Putztative" Apuzzo.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 25639
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
I think Rikker should go back and give Apuzzo the title we now feel best suits him.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)

Realist lives to serve. Foggy does it for the children. I'm in it for the schadenfreude.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:27 am
Posts: 2057
Location: Southern Gondwana
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
I think Rikker should go back and give Apuzzo the title we now feel best suits him.

Whats that, "Shit Head"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 143 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group