Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12811
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2026

Post by Whatever4 »

Seems like Rule 60 has an opening.I know I'm gonna regret this, but... what case are you talking about applying Rule 60 to? Sekrit Stuffs!
Why do I keep hitting myself with a hammer? Because it feels so good when I stop.
"[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 (I-ME)

Paul Pieniezny
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:42 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2027

Post by Paul Pieniezny »

Mikey you must be related to Taitz.To quote Groucho Marx: behind every great birther is a great pile of dung - and behind that pile of dung is Orly Taitz.

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2028

Post by MichaelN »

Seems like Rule 60 has an opening.I know I'm gonna regret this, but... what case are you talking about applying Rule 60 to?You are a glutton for punishment?I think application to SCOTUS in the matter of Ankeny in Indiana, might be a good starting point, seeing as the judiciary In Ankeny, apparently based their opinion in part on WKA holding, it may subsequently cause SCOTUS to review the proceedings that occured in WKA, to draw a conclusion.Are you fearful that the definition of Article II 'natural born Citizen' might eventually be entertained and ruled on by SCOTUS?It seems you are..

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17957
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2029

Post by Suranis »

Rhubarb Pie is also scrumptious!http://deblogs.depaul.edu/JessicaBurgwa ... e.jpgLooks delicious. Also, there's a place 2 doors up from where I live that does a great rhubarb crumble. MMMMmmmm
The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2030

Post by MichaelN »

Mikey you must be related to Taitz.To quote Groucho Marx: behind every great birther is a great pile of dung - and behind that pile of dung is Orly Taitz.Another one bites the dust and can't come up with an explanation of Coke's holding that ...Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthrightandby nature and birthrightAd hominem and childish taunt is all you have, as it is plain to see.Clear case of denial ................... and EPIC FAILURE. -xx .

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46704
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2031

Post by Sterngard Friegen »







Seems like Rule 60 has an opening.


I know I'm gonna regret this, but... what case are you talking about applying Rule 60 to?You are a glutton for punishment?





I think application to SCOTUS in the matter of Ankeny in Indiana, might be a good starting point, seeing as the judiciary In Ankeny, apparently based their opinion in part on WKA holding, it may subsequently cause SCOTUS to review the proceedings that occured in WKA, to draw a conclusion.





Are you fearful that the definition of Article II 'natural born Citizen' might eventually be entertained and ruled on by SCOTUS?





It seems you are.





.Great idea. I wonder why no one else interested in a SCOTUS decision on eligibility has thought of it. :-k





You aren't a lawyer and don't live in America. Why don't you convince Orly Taitz, or some other lawyer who does this "eligibility work" to bring the Rule 60 case before SCOTUS ? You can help write those portions of the brief demonstrating why Wong Kim Ark is wrong and was based on legal decisions hundreds of years old that were wrongly decided.





Let us know how that works out, please. Good luck. :-bd

Justin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:20 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2032

Post by Justin »

Are you fearful that the definition of Article II 'natural born Citizen' might eventually be entertained and ruled on by SCOTUS?





It seems you are.Personally, I hope that's EXACTLY what happens, though I don't see an active case that stands a likely chance of being heard by the Court. (Mostly because they already know how they ruled 110 years ago.)





I'm more curious what YOU would do, Michael, if and when the SCOTUS maintained the status quo of the past 110 years and left citizenship EXACTLY how it is now... with anyone born on U.S. soil being considered a natural born citizen. You seem quite unable to admit that IS the status quo. It has been for over a century. No one gives a flying fig about Coke or Calvin or English common law. Take it up with the Supreme Court. They're the ones who rained on your citizenship parade, long before you were born. 8-)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46704
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2033

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

I think I've figured out MichaelN's problem.Sekrit Stuffs!

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12811
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2034

Post by Whatever4 »

Seems like Rule 60 has an opening.I know I'm gonna regret this, but... what case are you talking about applying Rule 60 to?You are a glutton for punishment?I think application to SCOTUS in the matter of Ankeny in Indiana, might be a good starting point, seeing as the judiciary In Ankeny, apparently based their opinion in part on WKA holding, it may subsequently cause SCOTUS to review the proceedings that occured in WKA, to draw a conclusion.Are you fearful that the definition of Article II 'natural born Citizen' might eventually be entertained and ruled on by SCOTUS?It seems you are..Let's see... was there a clerical error that made a difference? Maybe in 1608, but not in Ankeny v. Daniels. Clerical errors are wrong phone numbers or names or words, not entire legal concepts. Newly discovered evidence? Doesn't apply to centuries-long well established legal concepts. Fraud by opposing party? Nope, any fraud would date from 1609. (6) any other reason that justifies relief? Well, except for the small detail of:c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60 (b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding. Ankeny v. Daniels Dismissal affirmed: November 12, 2009. So sorry, Mikey, 400 years of interpretation gonna stand in Ankeny for now. Better timing next time. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
"[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 (I-ME)

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2035

Post by MichaelN »

[quote name=Whatever4][quote name=MichaelN][quote name=Whatever4][quote name=MichaelN]





Seems like Rule 60 has an opening.







I know I'm gonna regret this, but... what case are you talking about applying Rule 60 to?




You are a glutton for punishment?





I think application to SCOTUS in the matter of Ankeny in Indiana, might be a good starting point, seeing as the judiciary In Ankeny, apparently based their opinion in part on WKA holding, it may subsequently cause SCOTUS to review the proceedings that occured in WKA, to draw a conclusion.





Are you fearful that the definition of Article II 'natural born Citizen' might eventually be entertained and ruled on by SCOTUS?





It seems you are.





.




Let's see... was there a clerical error that made a difference? Maybe in 1608, but not in Ankeny v. Daniels. Clerical errors are wrong phone numbers or names or words, not entire legal concepts. Newly discovered evidence? Doesn't apply to centuries-long well established legal concepts. Fraud by opposing party? Nope, any fraud would date from 1609. (6) any other reason that justifies relief? Well, except for the small detail of:





c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.


(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60 (b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.




Ankeny v. Daniels Dismissal affirmed: November 12, 2009. So sorry, Mikey, 400 years of interpretation gonna stand in Ankeny for now. Better timing next time.


](*,) ](*,) ](*,)




Who said anything about 'clerical error?





LOOK at the parts I high-lighted.





I suggest you read it again, the timing is not relative to (6).





(1), (2) & (3) are the only reasons the that the one year applies.





Here it is again, so you can un-cross your wires.





Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order





(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court’s leave.





(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:


(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;


(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59 (b);


(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;


(4) the judgment is void;


(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or


(6) any other reason that justifies relief.





(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion.


(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60 (b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.





(2) Effect on Finality. The motion does not affect the judgment’s finality or suspend its operation.





(d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. This rule does not limit a court’s power to:





(1)entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order,or proceeding;


(2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 to a defendant who was not personally notified of the action; or


(3)set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.





(e) Bills and Writs Abolished. The following are abolished: bills of review, bills in the nature of bills of review, and writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, and audita querela.




Fraud on the Court Law & Legal Definition





Fraud on the court occurs when the judicial machinery itself has been tainted, such as when an attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to the court. Fraud upon the court makes void the orders and judgments of that court.





In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."




.

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2036

Post by verbalobe »

I suggest you read it again, the timing is not relative to (6).





(1), (2) & (3) are the only reasons the that the one year applies.A whole day has passed and you still haven't learned to avoid commenting on subjects that you know nothing about.





That rule does not mean anything like what you think it does, not even close.





But here's an interesting question: if the rule DID mean what you seem to think it means -- who's to say the rule itself isn't wrong? I mean... it's part of the same history and body of legal practice that includes the Constitution, WKA, the 14th Amendment, etc., all the things you revile as reflecting a misguided interpretation of English Common Law.





Yeah, you're right. Rule 60 is probably garbage.





Oh! Here's another interesting question! ""Every man is either Alienigena, an Alien born, or subditus, a subject born." I got that from you. Which one is Obama? An alien born, or a subject (citizen) born?

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46704
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2037

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Yes! MichaelN is going to go the fraud on the court route. Like the Pidge and Paraclete. I'm sure his fraud on the court claim will meet a better fate.But, wait. MichaelN is not a lawyer. Who can bring the fraud on the court claim for him?Hmmmm. :-k How about ORLY TAITZ your heroine.Oh I forgot. She's ignoring your total nonsense, too.Too bad MichaelN. You're going to have to come to America, become a citizen and go to law school. By that time Hillary Clinton should be just about finishing her second term.

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2038

Post by MichaelN »

Oh! Here's another interesting question! ""Every man is either Alienigena, an Alien born, or subditus, a subject born." I got that from you. Which one is Obama? An alien born, or a subject (citizen) born?Obama is a 'subject born' of England.





.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35171
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2039

Post by realist »

Oh! Here's another interesting question! ""Every man is either Alienigena, an Alien born, or subditus, a subject born." I got that from you. Which one is Obama? An alien born, or a subject (citizen) born?Obama is a 'subject born' of England.





.Absolutely correct... not one ounce of Merkun in him.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46704
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2040

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

MichaelN is on fire tonight.

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7654
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2041

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg »

Seems like Rule 60 has an opening.How is Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable to Ankeny?





Rule 1. - Scope and Purpose





These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts ...Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,No. 49A02-0904-CV-353, was a proceeding in the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46704
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2042

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Seems like Rule 60 has an opening.How is Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable to Ankeny?





Rule 1. - Scope and Purpose





These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts ...Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,No. 49A02-0904-CV-353, was a proceeding in the Court of Appeals of Indiana.MichaelN is going to take the case to a federal court. So he's going to argue that there should be reverse retroactive jurisdiction. Just as de Vattell and Coke envisioned.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12811
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2043

Post by Whatever4 »

Seems like Rule 60 has an opening.How is Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable to Ankeny?





Rule 1. - Scope and Purpose





These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts ...Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,No. 49A02-0904-CV-353, was a proceeding in the Court of Appeals of Indiana.And THAT boys and girls, is why real lawyers come from real law schools. :xo
"[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 (I-ME)

gentrfam
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2044

Post by gentrfam »

[quote name=Whatever4][quote name=Butterfly Bilderberg][quote name=MichaelN]Seems like Rule 60 has an opening.




How is Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable to Ankeny?





Rule 1. - Scope and Purpose





These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts ...




Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,No. 49A02-0904-CV-353, was a proceeding in the Court of Appeals of Indiana.




And THAT boys and girls, is why real lawyers come from real law schools. :xo




Let's pretend that he cited Indiana Rules of Trial Practice 60(B), I'm impressed by the notion that a fraud on the court was perpetrated by correctly citing the established understanding of Calvin's Case and that it is "within a reasonable time" to file an action for relief from that fraud that originated 400 years ago! Or, maybe the fraud was committed by Horace Gray in 1898, only 113 years ago.





Or, is it fraud that no one in the combined US/UK legal tradition in the past 400 years has read Calvin's Case the way that Michael has?





It's Humpty Dumpty logic:





"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."




Why even have a legal dictionary if we're just going to make up our own definitions for things.





I mean, a lawyer less skilled in Humpty Dumpty logic might look at the cases that define the elements of "fraud on the court" which lets one get around the 1 year limit and be discouraged:





Cases in other Circuits make clear that "fraud upon the court" under the saving clause is distinguishable from "fraud . . . misrepresentation, or other misconduct" under subsection (3). As the district court explained in United States v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 349 F.Supp. 22, 29 (D.Conn.1972), aff'd without opinion, 410 U.S. 919, 93 S.Ct. 1363, 35 L.Ed.2d 582 (1973)





Generally speaking, only the most egregious misconduct, such as bribery of a judge or members of a jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is implicated, will constitute a fraud on the court. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944); Root Refin. Co. v. Universal Oil Products, 169 F.2d 514 (3d Cir. 1948) 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 60.33 at 510-11. Less egregious misconduct, such as nondisclosure to the court of facts allegedly pertinent to the matter before it, will not ordinarily rise to the level of fraud on the court. See Kupferman v. Consolidated Research & Mfg. Co., 459 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir. 1972); see also England v. Doyle, 281 F.2d 304, 310 (9th Cir. 1960).




Alternately stated, "[in] order to set aside a judgment or order because of fraud upon the court under Rule 60(b) . . . it is necessary to show an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision." England v. Doyle, supra, 281 F.2d at 309. See also United States v. Standard Oil Co. of Calif., 73 F.R.D. 612, 615 (N.D.Cal.1977)




Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F. 2d 1332 (1978)





Not our Michael - the US/UK legal tradition collectively misinterpreting a 400 year-old case, that's completely the same as bribing a judge!

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2045

Post by MichaelN »

[quote name=gentrfam][quote name=Whatever4][quote name=Butterfly Bilderberg][quote name=MichaelN]Seems like Rule 60 has an opening.




How is Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable to Ankeny?





Rule 1. - Scope and Purpose





These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts ...




Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,No. 49A02-0904-CV-353, was a proceeding in the Court of Appeals of Indiana.




And THAT boys and girls, is why real lawyers come from real law schools. :xo




Let's pretend that he cited Indiana Rules of Trial Practice 60(B), I'm impressed by the notion that a fraud on the court was perpetrated by correctly citing the established understanding of Calvin's Case and that it is "within a reasonable time" to file an action for relief from that fraud that originated 400 years ago! Or, maybe the fraud was committed by Horace Gray in 1898, only 113 years ago.





Or, is it fraud that no one in the combined US/UK legal tradition in the past 400 years has read Calvin's Case the way that Michael has?




Well then, someone who reads Calvin's case 'correctly', how exciting.





Then let's have your 'expert' take of what Coke meant when he said sanguinis was one of the TWO essential qualities for NBS.





Here, I am supposed to be reading it incorrectly, then YOU show what the 'correct' reading is.





There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.43




issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject




Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right




-xx





.

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2046

Post by MichaelN »

[quote name=Whatever4][quote name=Butterfly Bilderberg][quote name=MichaelN]Seems like Rule 60 has an opening.




How is Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable to Ankeny?





Rule 1. - Scope and Purpose





These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts ...




Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,No. 49A02-0904-CV-353, was a proceeding in the Court of Appeals of Indiana.




And THAT boys and girls, is why real lawyers come from real law schools. :xo




I'm excited, a 'real lawyer' should have no problem with this then.





What did Coke mean by ..........





There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.43




issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject




Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right







-xx





.

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2047

Post by MichaelN »

What happened to all the legal 'experts'?Cat got ya tongue? -xx .

User avatar
Its Funny
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:50 am

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2048

Post by Its Funny »

What happened to all the legal 'experts'?Cat got ya tongue? -xx . Maybe to busy laughing... that gets my vote.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16248
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

#2049

Post by Reality Check »

I found this little booklet on the "The New President George W. Bush" for kids linked at the Examiner. Check out Page 23:[/break1]gl/OlMW7]http://goo.gl/OlMW7 ;)
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”