Alabama Ballot Challenge

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Mon May 20, 2013 8:59 pm

He received his Juris Doctorate degree from Louisiana State University in 1973 and practiced law in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for 26 years and currently lives in Dallas, Texas. He specialized in Constitutional law during his practice and handled cases involving the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

What, no love for the 3d, 7th, or the 8th amendments?Connelly's [/break1]jigsy.com/]blog.

Some day I will create a moronic curriculum vitae and announce proudly that I practice Constitutional law, but only regarding penumbras and emanations.

User avatar
mighty dawg
Posts: 770
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Pacific NW

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby mighty dawg » Mon May 20, 2013 10:47 pm

One of our posters mentioned quite some time ago when the initial briefs were submitted, that Ragsdale and team appeared to have an underlying additional thrust towards avoiding giving any members of the court any potential encouragement to perhaps make some passing birther friendly comments.This bit caught my eye as somewhat less subtle than before in that respect..... :P

It would obviously be improper in the context of this narrow legal issue for the Court to offer any opinion about President Obama's eligibility

This is exactly the case. The amicus brief is intended to keep Justices Moore and Parker from saying something stupid even as they dismiss the case. What's really amusing is that the Motion To Strike has given the ADP an opportunity to reply and reinforce their main purpose. In the Reply they admit that the exhibits are not evidentiary, but rather "educational." But in pointing this out they are encouraging the Justices to take a peek at them, even if they aren't a part of the record.
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be" - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31117
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Mon May 20, 2013 11:20 pm

It was a masterful piece of work.[hidden]Damnit.[/hidden]

User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5086
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby jtmunkus » Mon May 20, 2013 11:44 pm

As I said before:[sekrit]Badasses. http://www.navysealfoundation.org/wp-contentsrc="http://thefogbow.com/forum/uploads/2012/02/navy-seal-photos-sea-assault__16_.jpg[/sekrit]

User avatar
DryInk
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:03 pm
Location: King of OffTopica
Contact:

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby DryInk » Tue May 21, 2013 9:43 am

IANAL (obviously), and I usually have very little to add to legal arguments (again, obviously), but even a legal neophyte such as myself can recognize a lawyer who knows what they're doing and one who doesn't (cough cough Taitz cough cough Klayman cough cough). I don't have to see either group in court (although it's apparent there, too. Also.). All I have to do is read any of the briefs that are submitted for the birther cases. You look at the rambling crap that Taitz or Jedi Pauly or whoever submit vs. this concise, well-written brief submitted by Ragsdale. Night and day. Heck, just having all the words spelled correctly lets me know it wasn't submitted by a birther.Slightly off-topic, and a slightly roundabout way of saying, "Well done, Mr. Ragsdale."NOTE: I have no idea if I spelled everyone's name correctly. Like Orly, I'm too busy to use the Google.

BamaLaw
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:58 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby BamaLaw » Tue May 21, 2013 10:29 am

You spelled Ragsdale right, the rest don't matter.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 30758
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby realist » Tue May 21, 2013 10:37 am

Docket Update...





SCOAL 2013-05-14 - McInnish|Goode v Chapman - [link]USJF Motion For Leave to File Amicus Brief,http://www.scribd.com/doc/142767174/SCOAL-2013-05-14-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-USJF-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Amicus[/link]





SCOAL 2013-05-14 - McInnish|Goode v Chapman - [link]USJF Amicus Brief,http://www.scribd.com/doc/142767163/SCOAL-2013-05-14-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-USJF-Amicus-Brief[/link]

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15702
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby bob » Tue May 21, 2013 10:47 am

SCOAL 2013-05-14 - McInnish|Goode v Chapman - [link]USJF Amicus Brief,http://www.scribd.com/doc/142767163/SCOAL-2013-05-14-McInnish-Goode-v-Chapman-USJF-Amicus-Brief[/link]

Signed by Oleson (in Ramona), not USJF's executive director, the self-professed constitutional expert.





USJF quotemined [/break1]aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/docview.aspx?id=122427&dbid=0]Irby v. Barrett, a 19[highlight]42[/highlight] case from SCO[highlight]AK[/highlight]. While 70-year-old non-binding authority isn't worth much, that case sinks USJF's argument. :shrug:

User avatar
AnitaMaria
Posts: 4360
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby AnitaMaria » Tue May 21, 2013 10:54 am

Mr. Oleson must have hired a middle school civics student to write that for him. :-* And what's with all the Orly-esque comma abuse?

Tarrant
Posts: 1314
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby Tarrant » Tue May 21, 2013 11:18 am

Is it just me, or does the primary case they cite - from the very beginning of the brief - completely justify why SoSes don't generally have a duty to examine eligibility of candidates, and demolish their entire case?





Even the very quote from the case that they used in their brief points out that giving state officers extraordinary abilities to remove candidates without challenge by anyone else gives them the power to remove anyone simply by citing said reasons (even if not true) and a judicial or other remedy might take too much time to be able to still conduct a fair election.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15702
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby bob » Tue May 21, 2013 11:23 am

Is it just me, or does the primary case they cite - from the very beginning of the brief - completely justify why SoSes don't generally have a duty to examine eligibility of candidates, and demolish their entire case?





Even the very quote from the case that they used in their brief points out that giving state officers extraordinary abilities to remove candidates without challenge by anyone else gives them the power to remove anyone simply by citing said reasons (even if not true) and a judicial or other remedy might take too much time to be able to still conduct a fair election.

In a word: yup.

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10412
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby A Legal Lohengrin » Tue May 21, 2013 11:24 am

Is it just me, or does the primary case they cite - from the very beginning of the brief - completely justify why SoSes don't generally have a duty to examine eligibility of candidates, and demolish their entire case?





Even the very quote from the case that they used in their brief points out that giving state officers extraordinary abilities to remove candidates without challenge by anyone else gives them the power to remove anyone simply by citing said reasons (even if not true) and a judicial or other remedy might take too much time to be able to still conduct a fair election.

They wouldn't be birfers if their arguments were capable of surviving past the first sentence of their own briefs.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31117
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Tue May 21, 2013 11:26 am

Was USJF simply confused about which side the amicus brief was supporting?





Why does Seal Team 6, Alabammy Chapter, get all the luck? :((

User avatar
rosy
Posts: 1480
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:36 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby rosy » Tue May 21, 2013 11:30 am

Why the draft font on page 6 of the USJF amicus brief? The whole thing seems to be a whine that Ms Bowen removed Peta Lindsay from the ballot because she was aware that she was 27, not 35. From that, they extrapolate that all Secretaries of State 'should' require each candidate to submit a birth certificate for their perusal. This would require a candidate to obtain some 50 certified copies of their birth certificate, one for each SoS, something that doesn't seem to have occurred to these idiots trying to push this additional responsibility onto each state's SoS. The amicus brief even accepts for a moment that it is in the nominating party's interest to check eligibility and only put forward an eligible candidate, but that is quickly glossed over with the absurd suggestion that a party might nominate a deceased person and the electorate (whom I assume the USJF think are both stupid and uninformed, despite the media) would vote for them, together with an insinuation that President Obama is "arguably ineligible". It doesn't seem to have penetrated their thick skulls that should they have got their way, the President would have obtained 50 certified copies of his birth certificate from Hawai'i, and each SoS would have accepted it under full faith & credit. So they still wouldn't have got their desired result of removing President Obama for presidenting while black, but each candidate would have a large number of copies of an important identity document flying about, with the attendant risk to them of identity theft.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 15702
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby bob » Tue May 21, 2013 11:33 am

It doesn't seem to have penetrated their thick skulls that should they have got their way, the President would have obtained 50 certified copies of his birth certificate from Hawai'i, and each SoS would have accepted it under full faith & credit. So they still wouldn't have got their desired result of removing President Obama for presidenting while black, but each candidate would have a large number of copies of an important identity document flying about, with the attendant risk to them of identity theft.

And its proposed rule wouldn't apply to just Obama, or just POTUS candidates. Every candidate for every office would be required to submit proof of citizenship.





This is what small-government conservatives are advocating.

User avatar
rosy
Posts: 1480
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:36 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby rosy » Tue May 21, 2013 11:37 am

And now I've properly read their cite to Irby v Barrett, it's clear they've scuppered their entire argument by that inclusion. I was too busy looking at the fonts and wondering where the United States of TVmerica might be (on p6). Could the USJF be making a statement on the power of the media, or is it just that they are poor proofreaders?

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 31117
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Tue May 21, 2013 11:41 am

:-k The amicus brief, which is helpful to appellees, appears written in Gary Kreep's style. Someone should do an analysis of it.





I, for one, have some questions . . .

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 18415
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC\
Contact:

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby Foggy » Tue May 21, 2013 12:52 pm

I love footnote 4, which notes that much like a picture of a baby is not a "new version of the baby", a newly scanned photocopy of a document is not a new version of the document.

A picture of a baby is a forgery of the baby. 'Course it's a new version of the baby. It's two-dimensional. It stays the same size for years, while the baby gets bigger. That's not a real baby. Take a different picture with different lighting, it's just a different forgery of the baby. It's "a new version of the baby" you can give to Aunt Ingrid but you get to keep the real baby. Problem is, it's perfeckly legal to forge a baby. People forge babies all the time. You can even make a forgery of a baby by putting together pieces of lots of other babies using Photoshop, and ... no crime.But if you forge a birth certificate and officially "show" it to the voters of this great nation in order to qualify for the presidency, then totally different story.
"The only thing more dangerous than an idea is a belief. And by dangerous I don't mean thought-provoking. I mean: might get people killed." - Sarah Vowell

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 27948
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby mimi » Tue May 21, 2013 1:03 pm

I find it most enjoyable that the birfers seem to think that they all have to jump into this particular case cuz Moore is on the bench.And if this happens, somebody get video of the twitter schmuck for me. pretty please.

Greg Howard ‏@GregWHoward 1 May@therightswrong I live in Alabama, and I'm going to drive to the State Supreme Court and watch the hearing when Obama is declared ineligibleDetails Reply Retweet Favorite

Greg Howard ‏@GregWHoward 1 May@therightswrong Oh, I'm so sorry. You can't discredit the story so you discredit the source. Case IS going to be heard before Judge MooreDetails Reply Retweet Favorite


Adrianinflorida
Posts: 2128
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:07 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby Adrianinflorida » Tue May 21, 2013 1:57 pm

He received his Juris Doctorate degree from Louisiana State University in 1973 and practiced law in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for 26 years and currently lives in Dallas, Texas. He specialized in Constitutional law during his practice and handled cases involving the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

What, no love for the 3d, 7th, or the 8th amendments?Connelly's [/break1]jigsy.com/]blog.

Some day I will create a moronic curriculum vitae and announce proudly that I practice Constitutional law, but only regarding penumbras and emanations.

And preamblez, you gotta work on cases involving preamblez, them is the best parts of constitutions. But you gotta stipulate that you only recognize that one under glass in the national archives. All those other ones are copies. With layers.

Adrianinflorida
Posts: 2128
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:07 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby Adrianinflorida » Tue May 21, 2013 1:59 pm

I love footnote 4, which notes that much like a picture of a baby is not a "new version of the baby", a newly scanned photocopy of a document is not a new version of the document.

A picture of a baby is a forgery of the baby. 'Course it's a new version of the baby. It's two-dimensional. It stays the same size for years, while the baby gets bigger. That's not a real baby. Take a different picture with different lighting, it's just a different forgery of the baby. It's "a new version of the baby" you can give to Aunt Ingrid but you get to keep the real baby. Problem is, it's perfeckly legal to forge a baby. People forge babies all the time. You can even make a forgery of a baby by putting together pieces of lots of other babies using Photoshop, and ... no crime.But if you forge a birth certificate and officially "show" it to the voters of this great nation in order to qualify for the presidency, then totally different story.

And everyone knows, baby layers are indirect confirmation of fraud. And those coffee cups with baby pictures, those are just a slap in the face to baby patriots.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 30758
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby realist » Tue May 21, 2013 2:08 pm

Greg Howard ‏@GregWHoward 1 May@therightswrong I live in Alabama, and I'm going to drive to the State Supreme Court and watch the hearing when Obama is declared ineligibleDetailsReplyRetweetFavorite

What a maroon. Even if, in the alternate universe of the SCOAL, they opined that the lower court was wrong in dismissing the case, and remand (for whatever reason), that does not "declare Obama ineligible".

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 27948
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Alabama Ballot Challenge

Postby mimi » Tue May 21, 2013 3:20 pm

Greg Howard ‏@GregWHoward 1 May@therightswrong I live in Alabama, and I'm going to drive to the State Supreme Court and watch the hearing when Obama is declared ineligibleDetailsReplyRetweetFavorite

What a maroon. Even if, in the alternate universe of the SCOAL, they opined that the lower court was wrong in dismissing the case, and remand (for whatever reason), that does not "declare Obama ineligible".

What will "therightswrong" do when the State Supreme Court dismisses the case? :lol:

GregWHoward was addressing his tweet to @therightswrong.we've talked about Greg Howard here awhile back. This is his twitter:[/break1]com/GregWHoward]https://twitter.com/GregWHowardPure nut.


Return to “State Ballot Challenges”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests