Page 4 of 4

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

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:07 am
by bob
I've been trolling Apuzzo with this anticipated failure. I'm sure he'll just deny blueness of the sky. Again.

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

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:11 am
by Reality Check
Notorial Dissent wrote: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:
It's a double hit for Rharon. Boyfriend Wally's appeal was on the same denied list. :crying:

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

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:51 am
by bob
Apuzzo wrote:The Court did not give any reason for the denial which it normally does not give. The denial of such a petition is not a ruling on the merits. We will just have to wait until another day.

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

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:04 pm
by Sterngard Friegen
Once, again, Blovario didn't lose. His victory was just put off a little longer.

:yankyank:

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

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:20 pm
by Reality Check
Apuzzo wrote:The Court did not give any reason for the denial which it normally does not give. The denial of such a petition is not a ruling on the merits. We will just have to wait until another day.
Or another lifetime Mario. It looks like you have blown this one. :fingerwag:

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

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:35 pm
by bob
Apuzzo's!:
Unknown wrote:The conferences are closed, so no one really knows. Cruz waived response, and the Court has not called for a response from Cruz. They court essentially never grants cert without calling for a response, so the chance of them granting cert at this time is pretty much nill. If they are at all interested they'll request a response from Cruz and, once they have it, schedule for a future conference.

A list of cases from the conference of September 26 that are granted cert is up, and Elliott v. Cruz is not on it. The cert denied list should be out soon, perhaps today (Monday 03 Oct 2016) which happens to be the official first day of the Court's 2016 term.

I predict the court will deny cert. Quite a few people have suggested the U.S. Supreme Court should take such a case an settle the matter, but the petition Mr. Apuzzo wrote is not a good candidate. He contradicts the position that Elliott had taken, and that Professor Mary McManamon argued in an amicus brief, by pushing his theory that a native-born child of a foreigner is not a natural-born citizen.
Apuzzo wrote:Bryan Gene Olson (“Unknown”) is reading comprehension challenged. This is what I argued in my Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Elliott v. Cruz. [Apuzzo's :yankyank: snipped.]

[Unknown] just does not get it.
Unknown wrote:Yeah, see, that's what I just predicted. You, Mr. Apuzzo, called me, "reading comprehension challenged".
Apuzzo wrote:Your prediction proves nothing given that the U.S. Supreme Court denies the vast majority of petitions for a writ of certiorari. And yes, you are reading comprehension challenged given your comment on my petition.

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

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:44 pm
by bob
Apuzzo's!:
Unknown wrote:
Apuzzo wrote:
This is what I argued in my Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Elliott v. Cruz. A natural born citizen had already been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court before it decided United States v. Wong Kim Wong (1898). That was done by Minor v. Happersett (1875). Virginia Minor had [...]
Oh, I comprehended that that's what you argued. You and I have argued over it many times. Thing is, this time you argued it in a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case in which your client, Carmon Elliott, had been arguing:
Elliott (to SCOPA) wrote:In American law the matter of being a natural born citizen is not complex. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held, a natural born citizen is an individual who was born within the boundaries of the United States. Because the law of the soil (lex soli), and not the citizenship of parents (lex sanguinis), is the basis for natural born citizenship, individuals born outside the United States are not natural born citizens even if a naturalization statute passed by Congress gives them automatic citizenship at birth.
Your theory about native-born children of foreigners was not at issue. The one time it appears in the record was when a Harvard Law professor, writing as amicus curiae in favor of Carmon Elliott's position, said it had nothing to do with the the case:
Elhauge (to SCOPA) wrote:Nor does this case have anything to do with far-fetched legal claims that even Presidents or Presidential candidates who were born in the United States, such as President Obama, Charles Evan Hughes, and Marco Rubio, are not natural born citizens because their father was not a U.S. citizen when they were born.
I disagree with the pure jus soli position that Mr. Elliott argued, but I never called it nonsense. When Mr. Elliott put it to the test where he lives, in the Great State of Pensilvania, he lost, but he got impressive support in the form of amicus curiae briefs by two noted law professors, Mary Brigid McManamon and Einer Elhauge. Challenges to Obama's eligibility never had anything like that.
Apuzzo wrote:[Unknown], the big problem that Mary Brigid McManamon, Einer Elhaugehave, and you have is that you do not present historical and legal evidence demonstrating what the Founders' and Framers' definition of a natural born citizen was. On the other hand, I do present such evidence and my position has yet to be refuted in a court or on the internet.
Apuzzo wins again!

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge]

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:25 pm
by bob
Cody Judy's blog: STUPID SUPPORTS ISIS in The Office of the President- SCOTUS OPENS UP Obama Alibi:
The United States Supreme Court Justices have . . . issued a ruling in the first Conference Hearing since their return from Recess that literally has every lawyer in the Country scratching their heads wondering about the commitment of prohibiting construction precedent to the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court Justices. The Case, a Birther Case entitled Elliott v. Cruz 16-13 received a "Denial" September 26th, 2016 which literally reverses every Birther Case since 2008 against Obama wherein "Standing" was cited or "The Political Question Doctrine" as an Obama alibi.

* * *

I know it sounds crazy doesn't it?
Yes, but not for the reasons Judy thinks.

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge]

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:35 pm
by Sterngard Friegen
I'm scratching my head, too. But I have a scalp itch.

OK. Gone now.

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge]

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:33 pm
by Notorial Dissent
Did I miss something?? I thought all they had done was refuse the case, not issue any kind of hearing. They just let stand the PA decision, which as near as I remember really didn't do much of anything except thumb their noses at Puzzi. I has a confuzzed now. :-? Then again, we are dealing with CRJ who has comprehension problems.

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge]

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:35 pm
by bob
Notorial Dissent wrote:Did I miss something??
Just this:
we are dealing with CRJ who has comprehension problems.
;)

A cert. denial just means Elliott's case is forever dead; it has no precedential value (for past cases or possible future ones).

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge]

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:45 pm
by Notorial Dissent
bob wrote:
Notorial Dissent wrote:Did I miss something??
Just this:
we are dealing with CRJ who has comprehension problems.
;)

A cert. denial just means Elliott's case is forever dead; it has no precedential value (for past cases or possible future ones).
I know, that is why I'm trying to figure out of what orifice he pulled this latest nonsense out of. Elliott is as dead as Judy.

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge]

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:59 pm
by Sterngard Friegen
Notorial Dissent wrote:
bob wrote:
Notorial Dissent wrote:Did I miss something??
Just this:
we are dealing with CRJ who has comprehension problems.
;)

A cert. denial just means Elliott's case is forever dead; it has no precedential value (for past cases or possible future ones).
I know, that is why I'm trying to figure out of what orifice he pulled this latest nonsense out of. Elliott is as dead as Judy.
An orifice similar to Drumpf's mouth.