Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
http://thefogbow.com/forum/
But Dr. Laity, Esq., has murdered forests with his letters informing "them" that ignoring Laity is misprision of treason and punishable by death.Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 5:08 am
"Shrouding" implies a deliberate act of not engaging with someone trying to promote an argument.
I lurve birthers' predictability:
And who can ignore an URGE from Laity?Laity wrote:It WILL come up. The FACT that Rubio is NOT an Article II Natural Born Citizen. I have URGED Trump through correspondence with “The Office of Donald J. Trump, Sr.” NOT to choose a person who is not an NBC. While Rubio was born in the US his parents were not US Citizens at the time of his birth. NEITHER of Rubio’s parents were naturalized until 1975., four years AFTER he was born.
Birthers don't like to be reminded about their past failures. They prefer to call the courts corrupt while wishcasting for a different result.Dennis Becker wrote: In any court action,, Rubio will be declared a natural born citizen just like he was in 2016 by the Illinois Election Board. The hearing officer called the reliance on the dicta in Minor v Happersett to be “misplaced”. Rubio’s case begins on page 89 of the boards report on objections (objections to Ted Cruz’s candidacy open the report).
https://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/ ... Agenda.pdf
It would appear (mostly) so, as some jerk* isn't passing moderation.
Dennis Becker wrote:Rubio was also found to be eligible by the Indiana Election Commission. In that case Rubio’s attorney pointed out that the Indians Appeals Court ruling in Ankeny v Governor of Indiana is binding precedent on the Commission.
https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/ ... Part_1.pdf
And was the best chance they had to go to a higher court for a definitive ruling but they blew that. Probably didn’t want to know.bob wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2024 5:06 pmIt would appear (mostly) so, as some jerk* isn't passing moderation.
But there's this:Dennis Becker wrote:Rubio was also found to be eligible by the Indiana Election Commission. In that case Rubio’s attorney pointed out that the Indians Appeals Court ruling in Ankeny v Governor of Indiana is binding precedent on the Commission.
https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/ ... Part_1.pdf
Birthers lurve to handwave Ankeny away: "iT iSN't BiiiiiiiNDinG!!!!1!" It is in Indiana!
*
The answer, of course, is "all of them," but I can't be bothered to make a new fake account.During live coverage Tuesday of the ongoing trial in New York of former president and leading 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, “The Benny Show” host Benny Johnson posted a poll he took of listeners’ preferences for Trump’s vice president should he be re-elected on November 5.
* * *
As of 11:45 a.m., Johnson posted the top four contenders in the poll as generated by observers’ votes consisting of Ramaswamy, [Byron] Donalds [(FL-19), former Democrat Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and Ohio Sen. JD Vance.
IIRC, she publicly stated that she had no intention of paying the fine, until the court began procedings to put a lien on her house. At that point, it was speculated that her husband stepped in and told her that he would put up with her hobby of filing frivolous lawsuits and such, but he drew the line when it came to risking their home.Reality Check wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 12:42 pm Chancery requested someone post copies of the two orders by Judge Clay Land in Orly's case in Georgia: (Rhodes v MacDonald)
$10,000 on the first order
ORDER denying 15 Motion for Stay of Deployment filed by Connie Rhodes. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 09/18/2009. (CGC) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
Then he doubled it after Bowling Ball's wonderful Motion for Recusal
ORDER denying 24 Motion for Recusal; denying 25 Motion for Extension of Time. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 10/13/2009. (lra) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
If she had done the response and not CEL3, she would likely have had only the 10K to worry about. CEL3's nastygram of a filing accusing the judge of all sorts of stuff did not go over well.Reality Check wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 12:42 pm Chancery requested someone post copies of the two orders by Judge Clay Land in Orly's case in Georgia: (Rhodes v MacDonald)
$10,000 on the first order
ORDER denying 15 Motion for Stay of Deployment filed by Connie Rhodes. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 09/18/2009. (CGC) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
Then he doubled it after Bowling Ball's wonderful Motion for Recusal
ORDER denying 24 Motion for Recusal; denying 25 Motion for Extension of Time. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 10/13/2009. (lra) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
https://formerly.thefogbow.com/forum/vi ... nd#p773700More importantly, CEL III, who obviously wrote the papers, tried his best to elicit sanctions, for reasons known best to him. He employed his fine legal and academic education, every skill he had acquired from half a decade or so of practice with a good firm, and a natural talent for offensiveness. The result was what you might call the eidos of sanctionable papers, a finalist in a Bulwer-Lytton-type contest for the most blatantly sanctionable papers you could possibly imagine. It's not surprising that CEL’s efforts to get under the judge’s skin succeeded.
All the document for this particular fiasco are on OldBow. https://formerly.thefogbow.com/forum/se ... mit=Searchchancery wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 2:05 pm
As I wrote at the time:
https://formerly.thefogbow.com/forum/vi ... nd#p773700More importantly, CEL III, who obviously wrote the papers, tried his best to elicit sanctions, for reasons known best to him. He employed his fine legal and academic education, every skill he had acquired from half a decade or so of practice with a good firm, and a natural talent for offensiveness. The result was what you might call the eidos of sanctionable papers, a finalist in a Bulwer-Lytton-type contest for the most blatantly sanctionable papers you could possibly imagine. It's not surprising that CEL’s efforts to get under the judge’s skin succeeded.
It might have been a poison pill farewell to Taitz, following the breakup of their apparent weird relationship.
Tom Arnold wrote:I want to emphasize, to any of you who might read this, the tremendous significance of THE TRUTH. In the purest sense, telling the truth is something that always is the right thing to do.
* * *
In a related matter, would George H.W. Bush have been constitutionally ineligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be a U.S. President? I have read reports saying Prescott S. Bush was born in Germany,[] and there are indications that George H.W. Bush also was German-born.
Derek wrote:There is no substantial evidence to support the claim that George H.W. Bush was German-born, which would have potentially made him ineligible to be President under the natural-born citizen requirement. George H.W. Bush was born in Milton, Massachusetts, in 1924, and there’s no credible information suggesting otherwise. Prescott Sheldon Bush was born in Columbus, Ohio, on 15th May, 1895.
Reality Check wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 12:42 pm Chancery requested someone post copies of the two orders by Judge Clay Land in Orly's case in Georgia: (Rhodes v MacDonald)
Reality Check, thanks for posting those two orders. Realist, thanks for posting that search link; it's a helpful gateway to the large number of Rhodes v. MacDonald posts on Oldbow. And thanks also to all the other members who have contributed recollections and observations since this discussion started up yesterday.realist wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 12:48 pm The documents are on OldBow. https://formerly.thefogbow.com/forum/se ... mit=Search
It made me feel a bit weepy.https://formerly.thefogbow.com/forum/vi ... sen#p51003BrockHausen v. Andrade, No. 08-10010-C368, (368th Judicial Dist, Williams Co, Tex, Jan. 22, 2009)
[Transcript of Hearing On Plea to Jurisdiction]
MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, first of all Ms. Kane brought forward on that case - all of their case, that federal case where quite often the plaintiffs were not found to have jurisdiction. This is a state case. Ms. Brockhausen has brought a case in the State court which is different and therefore Ms. Kane's argument as to Holenburg case (phonetic) would not be valid.
THE COURT: I'm still listening.
MS. TAITZ: Additionally, the circumstances of the case have changed due to the fact that the hearing was scheduled after the election. We have now a different set of circumstances. Now, her case is not against the person that's on the ballot, now her issue is the fact that the president in the White House is not there legitimately that will have [a usurper] in the White House. And there was never a case of such magnitude. There was never a case showing that there is no jurisdiction for a citizen of this country in questioning eligibility of one that is in the White House.
So because the case has been moved until after the election she actually got standing. She actually brought jurisdiction.
THE COURT: Okay. Is that it?
MS. TAITZ: Yes.
THE COURT: The plea to the jurisdiction is granted.
Do you have an order for me, ma'am?
MS. KANE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Thank you ladies. I have signed the proposed order.
MS. KANE: Can we be excused, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. That's all.
MS. BROCKHAUSEN: May I say something?
THE COURT: No, ma'am. You have a lawyer. That's why you have a lawyer here --
MS. BROCKHAUSEN: That's nice. I worked very hard on this.
THE COURT: Leave, ma'am
wavey davey wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 11:42 am We should create a new topic: Fogbow 1.0 Greatest Hits
I ordered that transcript the day of the "hearing." I then held on to it, and waited until just the right time to release it. It was a lot of fun. On OldBow I believe I titled the thread ORLY GOES TO COURT.chancery wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 2:46 am Not able to sleep, so I dug up another priceless moment in Orly Taitz's legal career.https://formerly.thefogbow.com/forum/vi ... sen#p51003BrockHausen v. Andrade, No. 08-10010-C368, (368th Judicial Dist, Williams Co, Tex, Jan. 22, 2009)
[Transcript of Hearing On Plea to Jurisdiction]
MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, first of all Ms. Kane brought forward on that case - all of their case, that federal case where quite often the plaintiffs were not found to have jurisdiction. This is a state case. Ms. Brockhausen has brought a case in the State court which is different and therefore Ms. Kane's argument as to Holenburg case (phonetic) would not be valid.
THE COURT: I'm still listening.
MS. TAITZ: Additionally, the circumstances of the case have changed due to the fact that the hearing was scheduled after the election. We have now a different set of circumstances. Now, her case is not against the person that's on the ballot, now her issue is the fact that the president in the White House is not there legitimately that will have [a usurper] in the White House. And there was never a case of such magnitude. There was never a case showing that there is no jurisdiction for a citizen of this country in questioning eligibility of one that is in the White House.
So because the case has been moved until after the election she actually got standing. She actually brought jurisdiction.
THE COURT: Okay. Is that it?
MS. TAITZ: Yes.
THE COURT: The plea to the jurisdiction is granted.
Do you have an order for me, ma'am?
MS. KANE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Thank you ladies. I have signed the proposed order.
MS. KANE: Can we be excused, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. That's all.
MS. BROCKHAUSEN: May I say something?
THE COURT: No, ma'am. You have a lawyer. That's why you have a lawyer here --
MS. BROCKHAUSEN: That's nice. I worked very hard on this.
THE COURT: Leave, ma'am
Epectitusjemcanada2 wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 10:07 am Now I want to watch the videos Epict(can’t remember how to spell it) made of Orly’s trials!
