The dregs of birther remainders.

[bob]

Oh, the irony.

(Gallups has blocked me on various media.)

[bob]

[pipistrelle]

Why doesn’t he have a pic/avatar?

[bob]

[Estiveo]

Why doesn’t he have a pic/avatar?

He stopped showing up in photographs & reflecting in mirrors around June, 2011.

[Baidn]

So Apuzzo can express his opinion, but Coca-Cola doing the same is violating his rights?

Does the "anyone who joins them" include the trump properties that are continuing to serve the products? bet that's a fun bit of cognitive dissonance for them.

[northland10]

So Apuzzo can express his opinion, but Coca-Cola doing the same is violating his rights?

Does the "anyone who joins them" include the trump properties that are continuing to serve the products? bet that's a fun bit of cognitive dissonance for them.

I do very little of those three to begin with (actually have never flown Delta, but I rarely fly). Still, how can MLB, Delta, and Coke doing less business with Georgia silence our opinion? It may cause some governments to change their course, but that's politics, not silencing.

He did not seem upset about Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-a silencing the opinions of the left (which they did not do).

[bob]

Apuzzo has stopped hand-wringing over Georgia, and is back to his greatest hits:

[realist]

Apuzzo has stopped hand-wringing over Georgia, and is back to his greatest hits:

Mario WINS again!!

[TheNewSaint]

Constitutional amendments are unconstitutional!

[bob]

Slate published an excerpt from Driving While Brown, a forthcoming book about Arpaio's legacy of racism.

Corsi's mentioned in the excerpt, but not Klayman, Montgomery, Zullo, etc.

[noblepa]

Constitutional amendments are unconstitutional!

Don't laugh. I've seen sovcits claim that a Constitutional Amendment can't change the original text of the document. Or, that, unless an amendment specifically says that it repeals a specific section of the original text, that the original text remains in force.

I'm not sure how that would work, because some, if not most, of the amendments directly contradict some portion of the original text in such a way that both can not be true simultaneously.

AFAIK, the only amendment to specifically use the word "repeal" is the 20th, which repealed the 18th amendment, or prohibition.

[northland10]

Constitutional amendments are unconstitutional!

Don't laugh. I've seen sovcits claim that a Constitutional Amendment can't change the original text of the document. Or, that, unless an amendment specifically says that it repeals a specific section of the original text, that the original text remains in force.

I'm not sure how that would work, because some, if not most, of the amendments directly contradict some portion of the original text in such a way that both can not be true simultaneously.

AFAIK, the only amendment to specifically use the word "repeal" is the 20th, which repealed the 18th amendment, or prohibition.

Though they try to make these convoluted arguments, it is quite obvious it had nothing go to do with founder intent or some creative originalist interpretation. Their main reasoning is quite simple. They don't like the later amendments (especially 13, 14, 15, and 16).

[bob]

Remember the "Constitution Association" (those nutters in Southern California who birfed)?

According to the docket, they served Harris (proof of service filed on April 23) and then asked for entry of default.

I haven't looked at the proof of service, but I'm guessing it might be defective. I also suspect the time for Harris (i.e., the DOJ) to respond has yet to run.

Their prayer for relief mostly just asks the court to say they are correct, but it does also ask that Harris be enjoined from serving. That'll give the shipping clerks a few yuks.

[noblepa]

Remember the "Constitution Association" (those nutters in Southern California who birfed)?

According to the docket, they served Harris (proof of service filed on April 23) and then asked for entry of default.

I haven't looked at the proof of service, but I'm guessing it might be defective. I also suspect the time for Harris (i.e., the DOJ) to respond has yet to run.

Their prayer for relief mostly just asks the court to say they are correct, but it does also ask that Harris be enjoined from serving. That'll give the shipping clerks a few yuks.

The linked docket shows an entry titled "Clerk's entry of default". What, exactly is that? I assume that it is not a default judgement.

Speaking of default judgements; when one party in a lawsuit fails to respond to the suit, the other party can ask the court for a default judgement in their favor, which is usually granted.

My question is: Is the judge required to grant a default judgement? If the plaintiff is asking for something insanely stupid, can the judge deny the request, even in the absence of a response from the defendant?

Isn't that how Orly lost a case to an empty chair? She sued Obama (or his campaign) and no one showed up, but she lost anyway.

[bob]

The linked docket shows an entry titled "Clerk's entry of default". What, exactly is that? I assume that it is not a default judgement.

Entry of default is not a default judgment; it is a step toward default judgment. Basically, it is asking the clerk to note that the other side has been served and there was no response.

It is mostly ministerial, and a clerk isn't going to pore over to see if service was valid.

Is the judge required to grant a default judgement? If the plaintiff is asking for something insanely stupid, can the judge deny the request, even in the absence of a response from the defendant?

The court can only grant relief if the court has jurisdiction and the plaintiff provides evidence for all elements of the claim.

In this case, even if service was proper, the court isn't going to enjoin Harris from serving. Because it can't.

Isn't that how Orly lost a case to an empty chair? She sued Obama (or his campaign) and no one showed up, but she lost anyway.

Sorta: The administrative law judge offered to enter a default order. But Taitz (and others) wanted to put on their case. They did, and still lost.

The administrative law judge was peeved that Obama didn't attend his circus, but it is just speculation as to what would have happened if Taitz actually accepted the judge's offer. In other words, I think the judge was bluffing.

Regardless, a real judge* tossed the whole lawsuit, making the unsurprising ruling that the administrative law judge lacked jurisdiction to hear a ballot challenge against a presidential primary candidate.


* Not to disparage administrative law judges, but they conduct hearings, make findings, etc. It was never the administrative law judge's call as to whether Obama would appear on the ballot. That decision had to be made by then-Secretary of State (now governor) Kemp.

[bob]

[Patagoniagirl]

Ahh yes, “it’s better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”.

[bob]

I haven't looked at the proof of service, but I'm guessing it might be defective.

So someone purchased the Constitutional Association's entry of default; it is now publicly available. Its boilerplate says that Harris "has been regularly served."

But the Consitution Association's proof of service shows that its process server on February 26 mailed (certified, return receipt requested) a copy of the summons ... to the White House.

So, if the Association ever bothers to move for a default judgment, the poor shipping clerk will read Rule 4, conclude Harris was not "regularly served" (the prior boilerplate notwithstanding), and recommend the motion be denied.

The only interesting part of this is it paid a professional process server to mail a letter. Easiest money the server ever made.

[scirreeve]

Cool. I don't pay much attention to the birfer stuff - I read it but have nothing to contribute cuz peeps here know way more about it than me. I hope Carl enjoys reading about the Bundys and sovcits. IDK why this happened. Whatever.

Capture.JPG (5.34 KiB) Viewed 17375 times

[bob]

Gallups and PPS both requested to follow my lurker account (which is protected). The only way he'd know to do that is to follow back everyone who follows his accounts.

So, clearly, Gallups snoops.

(And the "NN" in "PNN" stands for "news network." )

[northland10]

Gallups and PPS both requested to follow my lurker account (which is protected). The only way he'd know to do that is to follow back everyone who follows his accounts.

So, clearly, Gallups snoops.

(And the "NN" in "PNN" stands for "news network." )

I'm so sad... he's not following me. Ah well, I'm not following him either and I got tired of playing with that chew toy.

[bob]

[Luke]

Missing so much vital information.

Gallups B.JPG (74.5 KiB) Viewed 17283 times

[bob]

The setup:

[Lin Wood's] "It's Happening! Just give us a couple of weeks more!" announcements have been running since January 2021. Just saying.

I sense another block from Snowflake Gallups.