TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#126

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed May 02, 2012 3:34 pm

This is off topic. It's a different Tisdale for Jeebus' sake. And it's been discussed ad nauseum on the previously cited threat. This thread is about Charles Tisdale's lawsuit against President Obama where Tisdlae got a dismissal on the merits that's now on appeal.K?



Wild Bill
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:46 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#127

Post by Wild Bill » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:14 pm

Just saw this on the wire from the 4th Circuit today (emphasis mine):





PER CURIAM:


Charles Tisdale appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and motion for an injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3:12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012). We deny Tisdale’s motions to expedite the appeal and for an injunction, and to recuse Judges Davis, Keenan, Wynn, Diaz, and Floyd. We grant the motion to file an amicus curiae brief and file it out of time. We deny all other pending motions filed by Tisdale. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.





AFFIRMED





:-bd



Wild Bill
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:46 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#128

Post by Wild Bill » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:34 pm

btw, only one of the judges on the panel was subject to the recusal motion (Diaz). The others were King and Duncan.



User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4107
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#129

Post by DaveMuckey » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Just saw this on the wire from the 4th Circuit today (emphasis mine):





PER CURIAM:


Charles Tisdale appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and motion for an injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3:12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012). We deny Tisdale’s motions to expedite the appeal and for an injunction, and to recuse Judges Davis, Keenan, Wynn, Diaz, and Floyd. We grant the motion to file an amicus curiae brief and file it out of time. We deny all other pending motions filed by Tisdale. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.





AFFIRMED





Now piss off!





:-bdFIFT



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34518
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#130

Post by realist » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:53 pm

VA - 2012-06-05 (TISDALE) [link]APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMANCE that Obama is NBC,[/link]


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11520
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#131

Post by Whatever4 » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:56 pm

Why isn't it published? :-k


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

Wild Bill
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:46 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#132

Post by Wild Bill » Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:04 pm

Why isn't it published? :-k4th Circuit publishes very few of its opinions (under 2%). Especially on idiotic time-wasting nonsense easily reached per curium opinions like this.





48 opinions issued today, only 1 published.



User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#133

Post by Piffle » Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:42 pm

:-bd =D> I guess Mario's oh-so-scholarly-and-authoritative amicus brief wasn't enough to carry the day.





Even though this opinion lacks juicy quotes, it does establish a new high-water mark as far as the two-citizen-parent brigade is concerned. (It's the first ruling by a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals specifically affirming a lower court's rejection of the De Vattel/Minor "theories".)



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14920
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#134

Post by Reality Check » Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:55 pm

This is great timing. I just starting tracking Apuzzo's record at my blog. He is now 0 for 8. \ :D / [link]Mario Apuzzo’s Amazing Birther Legal Adventures,http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... dventures/[/link]


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Tarrant
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#135

Post by Tarrant » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:00 pm

This is great timing. I just starting tracking Apuzzo's record at my blog. He is now 0 for 8. \ :D /





[link]Mario Apuzzo’s Amazing Birther Legal Adventures,http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... dventures/[/link]All of which, of course, were travesties of justice by corrupt courts that know nothing about the law.





At least if you read his blog...





(I love how at his blog you kept posting quotes from actual decisions against him and he would reply saying how wrong you were and to prove it posting other random crap, completely ignoring the fact that the decisions you were quoting from all flat-out rejected his arguments)



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34518
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#136

Post by realist » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:01 pm

:-bd =D> I guess Mario's oh-so-scholarly-and-authoritative amicus brief wasn't enough to carry the day.





Even though this opinion lacks juicy quotes, it does establish a new high-water mark as far as the two-citizen-parent brigade is concerned. (It's the first ruling by a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals specifically affirming a lower court's rejection of the De Vattel/Minor "theories".)I just had to laugh that they accepted his most eggzellant amicus brief then rejected everything in it. :lol:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

Tarrant
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#137

Post by Tarrant » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:06 pm

:-bd =D> I guess Mario's oh-so-scholarly-and-authoritative amicus brief wasn't enough to carry the day.





Even though this opinion lacks juicy quotes, it does establish a new high-water mark as far as the two-citizen-parent brigade is concerned. (It's the first ruling by a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals specifically affirming a lower court's rejection of the De Vattel/Minor "theories".)I just had to laugh that they accepted his most eggzellant amicus brief then rejected everything in it. :lol:I'm sure, given Mario's recent history, he will consider it a victory that in his opinion they didn't say WHY they were rejecting it (despite stating flat-out 'READ THE LOWER COURT'S OPINION). For some reason in Mario's mind, going by his NJ case, an appeals court saying "The lower court was correct, and thus we are affirming the judgment based entirely on the reasons set forth by the lower court" means "The appeals court couldn't give a reason why they were rejecting it so they MUST BE CORRUPT."



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34518
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#138

Post by realist » Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:21 pm

Unfortunately, Tarrant, I'm sure you've nailed it.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14920
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#139

Post by Reality Check » Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:26 am

I'm sure, given Mario's recent history, he will consider it a victory that in his opinion they didn't say WHY they were rejecting it (despite stating flat-out 'READ THE LOWER COURT'S OPINION).Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner! :notworthy: :cheer: Mario is takeing credit for the fact that the 4th Circuit issued a nonpublished opinion. He says his amicus brief did the trick. He ignores the fact that the 4th Circuit only published around 8% of its rulings over the last decade and Tisdale's POS case certainly was never a candidate. This is buried on the second page of comments:Andy,The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Tisdale v. Obama affirmed Judge Gibney's decision. The Court said the following in its decision: “UNPUBLISHED.” “Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.” So, not only are such decisions not binding outside the Fourth Circuit, but they are also not binding within its own circuit. Hence, the Court’s decision is non-precedential and non-binding which makes the whole case non-precedential and non-binding throughout the United States. Do you know what that means? Too bad for you, my friend.My arguments were not thrown out with the appeal. My arguments were strong enough for the Court to rule that its decision is non-precedential and non-binding in the entire United States.[/break1]blogspot.com/2012/05/purpura-and-moran-file-their-brief-and.html?commentPage=3]http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/purpu ... mentPage=3


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Msottement
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:24 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#140

Post by Msottement » Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:28 am

Mario's a bit of a dick. He's taken to responding to my comments without posting them (as he did here).Coward.



User avatar
shrek
Posts: 1299
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 4:48 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#141

Post by shrek » Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:42 am




User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#142

Post by verbalobe » Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:44 am

...My arguments were not thrown out with the appeal. My arguments were strong enough for the Court to rule that its decision is non-precedential and non-binding in the entire United States.He didn't!! OMG, that is such arrant manure. Who could possibly be taken in by that?Don't answer that.



Tarrant
Posts: 1492
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#143

Post by Tarrant » Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:59 am

Your arguments were so good, Mario, that they ruled that your argument had no merit when rendering their decision.So good that they announced the case would be non-binding on everybody and everything SAVE THIS CASE IN WHICH YOU MADE THE ARGUMENT.Wouldn't that actually signify your argument was terrible?"This case was such a poorly argued clusterfuck that maybe someone competent could have made a point of some sort, but no one like that was found here, so we'll leave it unpublished."



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6983
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#144

Post by Slartibartfast » Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:30 am

In a discussion with Mario over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans about the difference between "precedent" and "binding precedent" he responded with this:







The Obots go around the internet telling the world that the definition of a natural born citizen was decided on the merits in their favor by Tisdale v. Obama, a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision and that this decision is precedent on the issue. I have shown that it is not precedent and now you want to weasel your way out by saying that “all court rulings are precedent (in every single court in the land) even if they are only binding on lower courts” and that I do not know the difference between “precedent” and “binding precedent.” As always, you are full of B.S. and do not know what you are talking about.



Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as: “An adjudged case or decision of a court, considered as furnishing an example or authority for an identical or similar case afterwards arising or a similar question of law. . . . A rule of law established for first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1059 (5th ed. 1979).



The Federal District Court dismissed the Tisdale pro se plaintiff’s case on the ground that he failed to show as a matter of law that he was entitled to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 damages and an injunction. In dicta, the court defined a natural born citizen, stating that anyone born in the United States under circumstances satisfying the Fourteenth Amendment is a natural born citizen.



The pro se plaintiff appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.



The Fourth Circuit affirmed. It wrote at the top of its Tisdale v. Obama decision: “UNPUBLISHED.” Before its one paragraph which comprised its entire decision and which refers only to the issues of the 1983 damages and the injunction, and which makes no mention of a natural born citizen, it wrote: “Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.





Now, I'm not a lawyer and I've never read the decision in Tisdale, but I seem to recall that Ankeny is cited in the holding which would mean that it was used as a precedent even though it wasn't binding on the court. Does this destroy Mario's argument as badly as I think it does? Usually you need to wade through much more of his effluvia to get such a clear contradiction.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10477
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#145

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:07 am

Slarti, I know Puzzi is your favorite chew toy, but is it even possible to have a discussion with him? I’ve never seen him do anything but lecture and pontificate on his mistakes of law and fact. I think he was light on effluvia this time around, but still clinging to his idea that it isn’t precedent if he doesn’t want it to be, and that just because an appellate court affirms a district court it doesn’t mean anything. I’m not sure that Tisdale really stands for anything other than that they did come out and say what a NBC was. Ankeny on the other hand wasn’t so subtle and flat out said it as a ruling, which of course Puzzi ignores.


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
realist
Posts: 34518
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#146

Post by realist » Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:45 am

Now, I'm not a lawyer and I've never read the decision in Tisdale, but I seem to recall that Ankeny is cited in the holding which would mean that it was used as a precedent even though it wasn't binding on the court. Does this destroy Mario's argument as badly as I think it does? Usually you need to wade through much more of his effluvia to get such a clear contradiction.



Unpublished opinions are not available for future citation as precedent.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10477
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#147

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sat Mar 21, 2015 8:52 am

Basically, if they mark it for unpublished it usually means nothing new here or nothing here at all, as this ground has already been trod upon, probably numerous times in the case of birfers.


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: 24538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#148

Post by bob » Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:18 am

In dismissing the complaint, the district court in Tisdale cited Wong Kim Ark for the proposition that it is well settled that those born in United States are natural-born citizens. The 4th Cir., in an unpublished decision, affirmed the dismissal. Ankeny is not cited in either decision. Neither Tisdale decision is binding on anyone other than the parties.Ankeny (when cited) is binding (or "binding precedent") only in Indiana; elsewhere, it is merely persuasive (or "persuasive precedent"). While most courts are not obligated to follow Ankeny, and none are required to follow Tisdale, any court can agree with them. And it is often acceptable for a court to adopt persuasive precedent as its own reasoning because it is so ... persuasive. (Tisdale is unpublished, and the rules for citing to unpublished decisions vary by jurisdiction.)So when Apuzzo and other birthers move the goalposts and say there's no binding precedent on the natural-born-citizen issue (which is true everywhere other than Indiana), they ignore reality: several judges independently came to the same conclusion. (Where's Monckton to calculate the probability of that happening?). An unaffiliated mixture of judges -- in jurisdictions chosen by birthers -- individually looked at the issue and all came to see same conclusion. Because they all agree that the binding precedent -- Wong Kim Ark -- compelled that answer.The business of making law is messy. There often isn't clear guidance from a superior court. But when an assortment of courts all come to the same conclusion, and no court disagrees, it is pretty clear what the law is.Apuzzo scores some points by saying Tisdale was asking for something that the court couldn't grant, i.e., he failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. But Apuzzo goes into the woods when he starts talking about section 1983 and injunctive relief because he never mentioned these concerns in his 7000-word amicus brief. When he had the opportunity to advise the 4th Cir. about the district court's errors, he never mentioned those problems; it was all natural-born citizen. Only after the 4th Cir. tersely affirmed did Apuzzo decide that the natural-born-citizenship discussion in the district court was dicta. But if Apuzzo thought it was dicta before the 4th Cir. ruled, why didn't he say so then? As is his wont, Apuzzo is changing his tune to conform to new facts, rather than admitting he was wrong.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#149

Post by Piffle » Sat Mar 21, 2015 11:48 am



Now, I'm not a lawyer and I've never read the decision in Tisdale, but I seem to recall that Ankeny is cited in the holding which would mean that it was used as a precedent even though it wasn't binding on the court. Does this destroy Mario's argument as badly as I think it does? Usually you need to wade through much more of his effluvia to get such a clear contradiction.



.

Sorry, but I'm afraid that Mario is more or less correct for a change. Tisdale is useless as precedent, much less binding precedent in the 4th Circuit or anywhere else for that matter.

You might fare better by using the word "authority" instead of "precedent". For instance, the Indiana state appellate court's holdings in Ankeny have been cited numerous times as authority supporting a particular definition of NBC and in several instances other courts have adopted the Indiana court's reasoning. These are examples of persuasive citation to authority, not (outside of Indiana) binding precedent.



"Authority", as applied to legal argument, is not limited to court opinions; it can include reputable treatises, books and even law review articles. The more often a principle is cited and followed by the courts, the better the argument that it should be viewed as persuasive -- especially in the absence of contrary holdings or authoritative criticism. The principle or rule becomes binding precedent only when an appellate court in the same "chain of command" adopts it in a decision that is suitable for use as precedent (i.e., not designated "non-precedential" or the like).



****

EDIT: Oops, Ankeny was an Indiana case, not an Iowa case as I originally wrote.



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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#150

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm

You might fare better by using the word "authority" instead of "precedent". For instance, the Indiana state appellate court's holdings in Ankeny have been cited numerous times as authority supporting a particular definition of NBC and in several instances other courts have adopted the Indiana court's reasoning. These are examples of persuasive citation to authority, not (outside of Indiana) binding precedent.



"Precedent" in a legal sense merely means a decision by a court, so it's both "authority" and "precedent." I don't see any problem with the term. Apuzzo, on the other hand, loves to play word games, an endeavour at which he is very poorly equipped.



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”