Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge]

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24430
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#51

Post by bob » Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:15 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:So, once the primary happens, then does the current complaint not become moot as far as the courts are concerned and any actions he contemplates be dismissed for mootness?
Yes, moot. But there is no "current complaint": SCOPA affirmed the lower court's dismissal; it is Elliot's burden to actually file something in SCOTUS.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10406
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#52

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:34 pm

I guess what I was asking then is with the complaint dead in PA and soon to be moot regardless, what could he then file beyond that without initiating a totally new complaint.


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: 24430
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#53

Post by bob » Wed Apr 20, 2016 3:51 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:I guess what I was asking then is with the complaint dead in PA and soon to be moot regardless, what could he then file beyond that without initiating a totally new complaint.
A cert. petition with SCOTUS. That'll cost thousands to file. And will be moot in six days.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10406
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#54

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:56 pm

That is where I was going, there is no reason they can't appeal to the USSC over the PASC denial, but by the time they could get an appeal filed and heard the issue they are appealing would be moot and the court would simply reject it as moot, or at least that is my understanding of the process. They lost in state court, and I don't think there is any unringing of that bell. As I understand it, at this point, their ONLY real option would be to file in USDC, and we pretty well know how that will end.


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

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#55

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:54 pm

Lyin' Ted is going to be history in a couple of weeks. So why bother?



User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 7654
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#56

Post by Orlylicious » Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:07 pm

:yeah:

But they should still spend tons of time, effort and money pursuing it until the last dog dies!



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10406
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#57

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:59 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Lyin' Ted is going to be history in a couple of weeks. So why bother?
'Cause some people are really really stupid and can't read the pancakes on the wall, birfers come to mind, repeatedly. Any idea of how much they actually spent on, what was it, eight years of losing court cases? I think that pretty well covers it.


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
Reality Check
Posts: 14814
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#58

Post by Reality Check » Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:21 pm

Apuzzo filed a petition to SCOTUS on June 28. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Elliott v. Cruz

Response due August 1.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24430
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#59

Post by bob » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:07 pm

"For completeness": Sup. Ct. Dkt. No. 16-13.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14814
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#60

Post by Reality Check » Sun Jul 10, 2016 3:11 pm

Wonder who is paying? Apuzzo didn't file IFP. The printing costs are at least a grand IIRC.


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10406
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#61

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Jul 10, 2016 3:22 pm

Reality Check wrote:Wonder who is paying? Apuzzo didn't file IFP. The printing costs are at least a grand IIRC.
I remember them being closer to $3-4k when Judy was begging for his fiasco? could be wrong.


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
RTH10260
Posts: 17052
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#62

Post by RTH10260 » Sun Jul 10, 2016 3:35 pm

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Reality Check wrote:Wonder who is paying? Apuzzo didn't file IFP. The printing costs are at least a grand IIRC.
I remember them being closer to $3-4k when Judy was begging for his fiasco? could be wrong.
Add $50 stamps as per Orly. :lol:



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24430
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#63

Post by bob » Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:29 pm

I'm both puzzled and pleased by this.

Puzzled because this endeavor is going to cost someone (Kerchner?) thousands of dollars. Yet even Apuzzo knows that 99% of cert. petitions are denied. So an expensive folly.

But I'm also pleased by SCOPA ruled "on the merits" that Cruz is a natural-born citizen because he was a citizen at birth. Apuzzo's forthcoming failure will be yet another fail, another notch in the perfect Apuzzo scorecard.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5984
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#64

Post by Sam the Centipede » Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:17 pm

bob wrote:I'm both puzzled and pleased by this.

Puzzled because this endeavor is going to cost someone (Kerchner?) thousands of dollars. Yet even Apuzzo knows that 99% of cert. petitions are denied. So an expensive folly.

But I'm also pleased by SCOPA ruled "on the merits" that Cruz is a natural-born citizen because he was a citizen at birth. Apuzzo's forthcoming failure will be yet another fail, another notch in the perfect Apuzzo scorecard.
:fingerwag: Now bob :wave: , you know that Apuzzo's scorecard shows victory :fiesta: after victory :fiesta: He tells us so and surely Mario wouldn't bend the truth into a pretzel, would he? :lol:

It will be a victory :fiesta: for Apuzzo (in his mind) unless the court grants him a hearing, lets him spout a torrent of blah :radioactive: :rolleye: :shit: for at least an hour :waiting: , then replies with chapter and verse :hammer: :hammer: repudiating ever single iota of Apuzzo's "reasoning" point by point (or pointless by pointless). Even then, Apuzzo will count it as a victory :fiesta: because the court will not have convinced him that he is wrong. Only people who are so totally biased that they accept factual reality as their guide (such as denizens of the Fogbow :wave: ) would consider it a loss for Apuzzo.

For Apuzzo, every time he does not admit to being wrong, every time he rejects counter-arguments, every time anybody gets bored with his taurocoprorrhea and goes off to live a happier life, is a victory :fiesta: for Apuzzo.



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

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#65

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:32 pm

That was not easy to read. :swoon:



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24430
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#66

Post by bob » Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:44 pm

Ob. Apuzzo!: Carmon Elliott Files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Ted Cruz Not Being a Natural Born Citizen:
Finally, we maintain that the important constitutional issue raised by Elliott’s ballot challenge has not been mooted by Cruz voluntarily suspending his presidential campaign because there is nothing stopping Cruz from again running for President or Vice-President and the issue of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen is capable of repetition yet evading review.

We urge Americans who are committed to having our politicians and government respect our Constitution and the rule of law to support our cause. Express yourselves not only privately, but also in public. Write letters and leave comments in print and electronic media. Call into radio shows and tell the hosts what you think. Mr. Elliott is also conducting a fund raising campaign to raise funds to meet our printing and filing expenses. We will appreciate your contribution.
Unknown wrote:Question: Before Esquire Apuzzo got involved in this case, did Carmon Elliott argue to his Courts that a native-born child of a foreigner was excluded from the presidency? Did Mr. Elliott also challenge Marco Rubio's eligibility, or just R. Ted Cruz? When the Justices or law clerks of the SCOTUS read the record from the courts below, will they find that the plaintiff argued what the linked petition for cert does? Specifically, had Mr. Elliott already argued:
Under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution, a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
To be clear: I'm not here asking for opinions on whether this argument in the petition for cert is right or wrong. I'm asking about whether it was Carmon Elliott's stated legal position before Esquire Apuzzo got involved.
Apuzzo wrote:First, you are not able to articulate a definition of a natural born citizen with any relevant historical and legal sources to support it.

Second, maybe you can understand that in the case of private U.S. citizen parents (not in the diplomatic or military service of the United States whose child born abroad to them is reputed born in the United States and under its jurisdiction), it is necessary for their child to be born in the territory and jurisdiction of the United States in order for their child to be a natural born citizen. Clearly, Ted Cruz, born in a foreign nation (Canada) presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father (Cuban), does not meet that necessary condition and so he is at best a naturalized "citizen" of the United States "at birth" by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress, and not a "natural born citizen" of the United States as defined by the common law upon which the Framers would have relied for a definition of the clause at the time they drafted and adopted the Constitution. The rest of what you write is your pathetic concern for your false leader, Barack H. Obama.
Apuzzo can't even answer a simple question. :roll:

And, no: Elliott never argued Apuzzo's two-citizen-parent fantasy; Elliot's argument was limited to birth outside of the United States.

Elliott's gofundme campaign ($1,355 raised of the $2,500 requested):
Thanks for your support of the Constitution. I've got Good news. Because of your donations Attorney Mario Apuzzo is now preparing a Writ of Certiori to submit to SCOTUS(The Supreme Court of the United States) for "Elliott v Cruz". Anticipating SCOTUS' choosing to hear "Elliott v Cruz" I need to raise more funds for costly printing of subsequent submissions to SCOTUS. I can Guarantee a full refund of donations made from now on if SCOTUS doesn't hear "Elliott v Cruz".

[ . . . ]

Out of a love for our Constitution I've devoted quite a lot of personal time, effort and money. Until my pro se case "Elliott v Cruz"was adjudicated in PA's Commonwealth Court, I had no attorney's help at all. The gofundme account has enabled me to get attorney Mario Apuzzo's help to submit a Writ of Certiori to SCOTUS. In anticipation of SCOTUS choosing to hear "Elliott v Cruz", I need to raise more funds for printing costs required for a SCOTUS submission. 48 copies of my submission in various colors and special format are necessary for SCOTUS' Justices and staff.

If SCOTUS chooses does not to hear "Elliott v Cruz", the good folks at gofundme assure me that I can guarantee a complete refund of donations made from this point on. However, should SCOTUS hear the case, you can be assured that history will thank you and you will always have that patriotic satisfaction.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24430
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#67

Post by bob » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:35 pm

"For completeness":
Jul 14 2016 Waiver of right of respondent Ted Cruz to respond filed.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#68

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:44 pm

Looking forward to another win for Blovario. :daydream:



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24430
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#69

Post by bob » Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:39 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:Looking forward to another win for Blovario. :daydream:
Can you wait two months?:
SCOTUS wrote:Jul 27 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

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

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#70

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 28, 2016 4:41 pm

:waiting:



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24430
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#71

Post by bob » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:52 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote: :waiting:
SCOTUS granted cert. in eight cases today:
► Show Spoiler


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14814
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#72

Post by Reality Check » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:05 pm

Yes, all the signs are pointing to a cert denied Monday celebration. :thumbs:


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14814
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#73

Post by Reality Check » Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:38 am

Elliott v Cruz was denied cert. Another win for Mario! :dance:


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34494
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#74

Post by realist » Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:41 am

Reality Check wrote:Elliott v Cruz was denied cert. Another win for Mario! :dance:
I'm SHOCKED!! :rotflmao:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 10406
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

#75

Post by Notorial Dissent » Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:53 am

In other startling news, the sun came up at its regularly appointed AGAIN this morning. Rharon will undoubtedly be breathlessly bemoaning the gross miscarriage of justice and Blovario will be claiming victory. I think I'm starting to see a pattern develop here. :sarcasm:


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.

Post Reply

Return to “State Ballot Challenges”