The dregs of birther remainders.

[realist]

RC posted on the Oldbow the dismissal order from his case. But I forgot my Oldbow password and can't see it. Gielow, whose PAC was the actual plaintiff in Gielow's suit, wasn't represented by a lawyer; Gielow claimed this was the basis for the court's dismissal.

I could not open the file on the old Fogbow but fortunately I still had a copy.
scan0032.pdf

Now that I read the dismissal order again I assume that the part of the order striking the case from the docket just means that the case is dead Jim and please take it off the active docket and put it in the dead file. Maybe bob could comment on that?

Interesting. When I clicked the link at the old Fogbow it worked fine.

[Reality Check]

Interesting. When I clicked the link at the old Fogbow it worked fine.

You are correct. I was not logged in on the old forum. When I logged in it opened fine.

[bob]

Now that I read the dismissal order again I assume that the part of the order striking the case from the docket just means that the case is dead Jim and please take it off the active docket and put it in the dead file.

Concur.

Jim: the hardest working clerk in the shipping business.

[Suranis]

Its just an image now and the links don't work, but you cam look at the homepage of the sherrifs kit here

http://wheresobamasbirthcertificate.com/

[Suranis]

Doc Conspiracy on it https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/01 ... -strategy/

[Foggy]

Off Topic

... I forgot my Oldbow password ...

Gosh, if only there was someone with admin access to Formerly Fogbow who could reset the password to your Formerly Fogbow account, but who prefers the name Formerly Fogbow, which is the official name anyway. What is this Oldbow of which you speak?

And secondly, I'm not old, so how could Formerly Fogbow be old?


Anyway, it's been fun but it's Thanksgiving eve and Numbah One Son is coming tonight for dinner. I'll deal with you and your password in the morning, mister. Maybe. I have a BodyCombat class at 9 that I'm desperate to do, it's called preemptively burning the Thanksgiving calories.

But, y'know ... someday we'll work on it with PMs here and passwords there, and never the twain shall meet.

Edit: Oh wait, you live on the Left Coast, and use clocks. So, later mañana.

[bob]

Off Topic

I'll deal with you and your password in the morning, mister. Maybe.

But Foogy, I whined I couldn't access a file and magickally appeared here, without me having the bother the rooster on Eatin' Fowl Eve.

[bob]

It is hi-larious that Kerchner continues to bite on Malik's (account's*) weak trolling.

But I'm shocked Kerchner referred to Obama as the 44th president.


* Blue checkmark notwithstanding, I recall speculation that Chuck Johnson took over Malik's account.

[realist]

[Phoenix520]

That was painful to read.

[bob]

P&E: A “Minor” Clarification:

[Wong Kim Ark] has been interpreted by the Congressional Research Service, lower appellate courts, law professors and others as meaning that if one is a “citizen at birth” or a “citizen by birth,” such would satisfy the Constitution’s nbC requirement.

Your servant disagrees.

I actually like this article because DeMaio, underneath his wretched writing, finally acknowledges the real issue: DeMaio.

DeMaio makes clear he believes he's at least equal to the courts and legal experts. The flaws in his analysis all flow directly from that base point.

[noblepa]

P&E: A “Minor” Clarification:

[Wong Kim Ark] has been interpreted by the Congressional Research Service, lower appellate courts, law professors and others as meaning that if one is a “citizen at birth” or a “citizen by birth,” such would satisfy the Constitution’s nbC requirement.

Your servant disagrees.

I actually like this article because DeMaio, underneath his wretched writing, finally acknowledges the real issue: DeMaio.

DeMaio makes clear he believes he's at least equal to the courts and legal experts. The flaws in his analysis all flow directly from that base point.

Doesn't this demonstrate a common (almost universal) lack of understanding of the way the law works in the US, on the part of the sovcits, and now election deniers?

In this country, it is the courts that get to decide what a law really means and how it is implemented. You and I may have an opinion and we may disagree with the court's decision. But it is the court's decision, and that of appellate courts up to and including the Supreme Court, that determine what the law actually IS. Theirs is the final word.

That is the only way a legal system can work. If you and I could decide which laws and which rulings are valid, we would soon descend into chaos.

Fortunately, in our system, at least in theory, if enough people agree that a law is bad, or that a case was wrongly decided, there are avenues to overrule the decision. Those avenues are deliberately difficult, to prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry abusing the process with frivolous challenges.

[bob]

P&E comment:

The first secretly circulated to members of Congress CRS Memo on the subject of natural born Citizen was written about April 2010 at the behest of unnamed members of Congress asking what to tell their constituents in answer to the many, many questions about Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office he de-facto sat in. This first secret CRS Memo on the subject was provided to members in secrecy for internal use only and was not to be released to the public. This CRIS Memo was provided to members of Congress to provide unified talking point answers to the Many questions they were getting from constituents. This memo explains to us who eventually received replies to our letters, why the letters from many of the members of Congress all seemed to say the same thing using virtually the exact same terminology. In effect, it was the source of their talking points on the subject of Obama’s eligibility question. Many of those questions were being raised by my federal lawsuit Kerchner v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit ... that was in process at that time and also the advertising campaign in the Washington Times National Edition ... discussing Obama’s forged identity documents and his lack of “natural born Citizen” status , and thus eligibility for the office he usurped. So my lawsuit suing Congress itself was partly the reason for the memo being written, to provide a unified answer for the members when answering to the public’s questions and why it was leaked to my attorney, Mario Apuzzo. The existence, and copy thereof, of this first secret CRS Memo (internal memorandum) was leaked by a member of Congress to my attorney Mario Apuzzo who immediately published it on his blog and from there it was picked up by WorldNetDaily, after we called it to there attention.

I lurve this new narrative, in which Apuzzo and Kercher put such fear into Congress that it had to ... ask for a memo!

Some jerk* toils in the troll mines for these kinds of nuggets.

*

[realist]

Yes, such a powerful lawsuit.

Birther Scorecard.

SCBA51~1.PNG (58.01 KiB) Viewed 423 times

SC611E~1.PNG (47.35 KiB) Viewed 418 times

[Mr. Gneiss]

realist, my Apuzzo is awfully rusting, but wasn't the Fed case with the order to show cause a BIG win for Apuzzo (and plaintiff Kerchner) because Apuzzo's tome (a short story to him) was accepted without comment by the appeals court?

The alleged BIG Birther win was that Kerchner's lawsuit was not frivolous because Appuzo's brief was so truthy.

[johnpcapitalist]

P&E comment:

The first secretly circulated to members of Congress CRS Memo on the subject of natural born Citizen was written about April 2010 at the behest of unnamed members of Congress asking what to tell their constituents in answer to the many, many questions about Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the office he de-facto sat in. This first secret CRS Memo on the subject was provided to members in secrecy for internal use only and was not to be released to the public.

I lurve this new narrative, in which Apuzzo and Kercher put such fear into Congress that it had to ... ask for a memo!

Some jerk* toils in the troll mines for these kinds of nuggets.

*

I love how he makes the CRS sound so sinister. The fact that the members of Congress who requested the report aren't named is trivial. And it was CRS policy at the time to provide information only to members of Congress, who could then decide whether to release it publicly or not. I don't know the reason for this practice, but CRS reports are now broadly published on the CRS's web site.

There's a big difference between a document that's circulated non-publicly and a document that has sensitive, controlled or classified information on it. CRS documents do not have any such information.

Anyone who knows anything about how the CRS works knows what a laugh it is to try to characterize them as shady and extra-legal. They're librarians, for gosh sakes!

[Gupwalla]

Yes, such a powerful lawsuit.

Birther Scorecard.

Ooof. Costs and a Show Cause for sanctions, plus the common and boring DENINED.

All of the birthers lost their cases, but few hit the magic Triple Smackdown.

[northland10]

Yes, such a powerful lawsuit.

Birther Scorecard.

Ooof. Costs and a Show Cause for sanctions, plus the common and boring DENINED.

All of the birthers lost their cases, but few hit the magic Triple Smackdown.

He rescued himself from one smackdown when he sent his show cause response and the court, IIRC, said, "fine, whatever, move along, son, you're bothering me."

I love how he makes the CRS sound so sinister.

Anyone who knows anything about how the CRS works knows what a laugh it is to try to characterize them as shady and extra-legal. They're librarians, for gosh sakes!

The CRS has to be sinister and shady because it makes Kerchner sound like a fighter, not just some old clueless fart who has been wrong about everything (well, to his audience since we already know he is clueless and wrong).

Some jerk* toils in the troll mines for these kinds of nuggets.

*

And I appreciate the jerk's efforts.

[bob]

P&E: Treason on the Docket at U.S. Supreme Court:

The petition Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al., now docketed before the U.S. Supreme Court cites the national security breach by 388 federal officers having violated their sworn oath. The 117th Congress met on January 6, 2021 to debate and count the electoral college votes for the 2020 Presidential Election in which over 100 members of the U.S. Congress claimed factual evidence of election fraud. The respondent’s refusal to investigate this congressional claim was an act of treason.

I can't be bothered to explain why this is the usual nothing, like you've seen before. "For completeness," the 10th Cir.'s affirmance of the dismissal.

And, for the masochists: American Thinker: Is this the Supreme Court case that will drain the swamp?

It's already dead-listed; the denial will be published on January 10.

But Kudos to Powell A2Guardians for knowing how to pitch to Rondeau:

Though not a part of this case, it should be noted that previous petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court sought redress for violations of the U.S. Constitution for ineligible candidates for President and in the 2020 election for Vice President which also represented treason and a threat to national security. It is difficult to imagine how the court can continue to ignore such fraud and violations to the Oath of Office with impunity.

Although previous efforts to enforce Article II eligibility have reached the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court, every challenge was answered with silence and repeated injury. This inability to enforce the Constitutional qualifications for President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of its Armed Forces, and Vice-President of the United States is a threat to national security and should not be mistaken for acquiescence.

Rondeau would post a recipe for chow mein if one of the ingredients was "OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA!!1!"

[bob]

The CRS has to be sinister and shady because it makes Kerchner sound like a fighter, not just some old clueless fart who has been wrong about everything (well, to his audience since we already know he is clueless and wrong).

P&E comment:

Oh contraire, mon frère, [some jerk* has] been doing just that in this forum for months using your psych-ops and language manipulation tactics. You have been equating basic Citizenship obtained via man-made laws, acts, and amendments with being a “natural born Citizen”, which can only be gained by the Natural Law circumstances of one’s birth, exactly at the time of birth. For example, you are doing this when you past or present here argue that anyone simply born in the USA without regard to the status of the parents while here, is a “natural born Citizen”. Such persons make an unjustified claim to U.S. Citizenship solely by them and their advocates citing man-made laws and/or man-made amendments to our Constitution and ignoring that their parents were not under the full political jurisdiction of the USA when she was born. Your position would argue that a child born of an illegal alien terrorist couple from Iran who sneaked into the USA across the Mexican border and birthed a child here, that that child is a “natural born Citizen”. Nothing is farther from the truth. How is such a child free from “foreign influence” at birth, which is what John Jay wrote in his letter to George Washington. Such a child is at most a person who is a Naturalized Citizen at birth by man-made laws or acts. Man-made laws such as 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth, which is a man-made naturalization law . . ... No where in that man-made law or in the 14th Amendment is the phrase “natural born Citizen”.**

There is nothing “natural” about gaining Citizenship from man-made laws, acts, amendments, or other actions created by Congress. Congress cannot create “natural” anything when it comes to Citizenship and in their only attempt to do so in 1790 it was shortly repealed and corrected in 1795. And the same mistake has never been made again by Congress because they learned a lesson from that first error, as to the limit of their power. They cannot create a “natural born Citizen”. Only the Laws of Nature and Natural Law can create “natural” anything, i.e. in this case, natural born Citizens. Adjectives mean something. Natural used as an adjective means something. Look up the meaning of “natural” in a few good dictionaries. Don’t continue here to engage in use the Antonio Gramsci*** trained linguists tactics of manipulating language to achieve political objectives and manipulate public opinion. Errors in the status quo do not make things correct per original understanding and intent either. The U.S. Supreme Court has often corrected errors in the status quo, when they finally get the courage to do so. They did so recently for a major constitutional error committed by a prior court. Hopefully at some future time they will stop avoiding the question as Justice Thomas stated in a hearing, and fully address and decide the original intent meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in the direct context of who is a “natural born Citizen” per the presidential eligibility clause, Article II Section 1, Clause 5. We are in the mess we are in today because they have been cowards and avoiding the question, as stated in public by Justice Thomas.


* * *

You will never allow yourself grasp the original intent meaning and understanding of being born a “natural born Citizen” because you choose with fallacy logic not to do so. That is your job here, as I see it. That is why you hang out here. To manipulate language and confuse newbies. You should watch the recent movie “The Hater” (2020). You would likely recognize an analog to yourself and your associates and/or organization in it.

Hope Kerchner's ticker is still working after he blew that gasket over nothing.


*

** The U.S. Constitution isn't ... man-made? Brought down the mountain by Moses?

*** Gramsci is the new Alinksy, dontchaknow.

[Sam the Centipede]

Hmmm… I could have sworn that it's 2022 – my calendar must be running very slow.

Has that black hole of stupidity – the P&E – accumulated such a mass of crazy that time has warped back on itself?

[bob]

I dunno ... maybe win a case?

(It doesn't appear to be loading, but it is just KrisAnne Hall still being dumb.)

[realist]

Hopefully at some future time they will stop avoiding the question as Justice Thomas stated in a hearing, and fully address and decide the original intent meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in the direct context of who is a “natural born Citizen” per the presidential eligibility clause, Article II Section 1, Clause 5. We are in the mess we are in today because they have been cowards and avoiding the question, as stated in public by Justice Thomas.

They just can't get away from their stupid interpretation of the Justice Thomas joke comment.

That aside, silly me. I thought U.S. v WKA did exactly what Kerchner proposes SCOTUS now do.

[bob]

P&E: 2024 Presidential Election

So nice, Rondeau Gielow wrote it twice: P&E: Ensuring Legality in our Elections:

I write well before our next presidential election to encourage you to seek clarity on the constitutional natural born citizen eligibility requirement for US president so that our commissioner of elections can fulfill his responsibility under Virginia law to ensure legality in our elections.

This constitutional eligibility requirement has never been the subject of more than dicta by our US Supreme Court. Countless challenges have been made to contenders eligibility status due to this requirement. That we, as a nation, do not know with clarity the meaning of an eligibility requirement for the highest political office in the land is astounding. What is more astounding is the degree to which opinions vary as to its meaning. Newsweek ran a front cover piece claiming that Prince Archie could one day run for US president. More to the legal point, without legal clarity, our Virginia Commissioner of Elections cannot fulfill his legal requirement to ensure those on Virginia ballots are eligible for the positions they seek, this requirement impacting the offices of president and vice president.

Respectfully request you seek a U.S. Supreme Court decision defining, once and for all, the meaning of this US Constitutional eligibility requirement. Absent such a decision, there are multiple persons already considering a run of questionable eligibility, Tulsi Gabbard, born in unincorporated American Samoa, and Niki Haley, born in the US to non citizen parents, being only two.

Without clarity, the only way for the commissioner of elections to do his job of ensuring legality in our elections would be to enact potentially over broad exclusions for those of questionable article II eligibility to appear on Virginia ballots for these offices. Waiting to take such actions until ballots are printed would be unwise. Raising the issue early in the process is necessary.

I know Justice Thomas has joked* before congress that the court is avoiding the issue. Many Americans do not believe this is a joking matter. It is certainly unsettling that a major news publication believes that a prince of England could run for US President. By many persons interpretations, so could a child born in the US to illegal immigrants or, for that matter, to non permanent legal US residents here on student visas with citizenship in other countries.** I look forward to your response.

Have fun sitting by the mailbox.

To state the obvious: the first and fatal mistake is the presumption the state is required to police its ballots.

On one hand, I appreciate Gielow's attempt to Tom Sawyer the AGoVA into filing an eligibility challenge on his behalf. Over/under how many letters Gielow will send before getting the clue? (Cf. Laity, who remains clueless.) OTOH, .


* Acknowledging that Thomas was joking won't make you any friends at the P&E.

** Assuming a human ever reads this (and reads to the very end), this reference to Harris is too subtle for anyone but birthers.

[northland10]

Respectfully request you seek a U.S. Supreme Court decision defining, once and for all, the meaning of this US Constitutional eligibility requirement.

I do believe it was their favorite founder dude John Jay who, as SCOTUS CJ, told Pres Washington, "we don't do advisory opinions."