The dregs of birther remainders.
- Foggy
- Dick Tater
- Posts: 10017
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:45 am
- Location: Fogbow HQ
- Occupation: Dick Tater/Space Cadet
- Verified: as seen on qvc zombie apocalypse
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Srsly? They let the Zuckerberg comment through moderation?
- RTH10260
- Posts: 15499
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
- Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
- Verified: ✔️ Eurobot
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
When you consider yourself a Facebook clown clone you don't want to offend its founder
- northland10
- Posts: 5988
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
- Location: Northeast Illinois
- Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
- Verified: ✅ I'm me.
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
With having to both YouTube recordings and many Zoom/Team meetings and liturgies, I have taken great pains to hide the constant clutter that is my small apartment for, if anything, it distracts from the content. I can only figure, without watching, that somehow Gibbs's cluttered closet (and badly displayed flag) backdrop is meant to complement the clutteredness of the content.
Did he tape some cheap warrior poster to the door with duct tape. Who does that after they leave their teenaged years?
101010
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
I really cant stand the "constitutionalist" groups. Even if they weren't pretty much to a man RWNJs its just such a useless thing to call yourself. If they were being honest it would mean that they have among the most flexible political views in the world since the constitution is fairly malleable by design between the amendment process and the interpretation power of the SCOTUS. Yet I have yet to find one that says "well the SCOTUS ruled this is constitutional so as a constitutionalist I respect their constitutional power to interpret the law as being so or not" or applying the same thing to the amendment process its pretty 100% "Nope the constitution means what I want it to mean and nothing else." Angry old man rant over
"...don't teach a man to fish. He's a grown man and fishings not that hard." Ron Swanson the worlds only good libertarian
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Yeah, but no more after that one.
As with other birthers, they only want to hear agreement.
And Gibbs is grifting off their lawsuit; they literally cannot afford to let the marks learn that their suit will go nowhere.
Gibbs in his broadcast basically said he believes judicial review is unconstitutional, which is why ignores judicial rulings. Unless he likes what they say; then he quotes them.
I think he got the memo about his cluttered "office" because I noticed a later video had a patiotc background filter.
- noblepa
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
bob wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:11 amYeah, but no more after that one.
As with other birthers, they only want to hear agreement.
And Gibbs is grifting off their lawsuit; they literally cannot afford to let the marks learn that their suit will go nowhere.
Gibbs in his broadcast basically said he believes judicial review is unconstitutional, which is why ignores judicial rulings. Unless he likes what they say; then he quotes them.
I think he got the memo about his cluttered "office" because I noticed a later video had a patiotc background filter.
I kinda. sorta get the argument that Judicial Review is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, as a power granted to the courts. I don't agree with the argument, but it is not an irrational argument.
As I understand it, the argument in favor of Judicial Review goes like this: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No one disputes this, except the fanatics who insist that God's law (as they interpret it) supersedes the Constitution. The Constitution provides a process to amend itself, when it is deemed necessary, and that process is definitely NOT by ordinary statute.
So, if Congress passes an ordinary statute that contravenes the Constitution, it can't be a valid law.
What would happen, if Judicial Review were not a thing, if the courts, particularly SCOTUS could not strike down a law? There would be no limit to what Congress could do. The Constitution would lose all meaning.
Even the Tenth Amendment, so beloved by RWNJ's, would have not meaning. Who would decide that Congress had usurped a power reserved to the states?
Who would guard against an over-zealous Congress severely limiting gun ownership, or banning it outright, despite the second amendment?
If Judicial Review is not a thing, then the Supremacy clause is meaningless. Without JR, Congress becomes supreme and unchallengeable.
- noblepa
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
I wasn't sure where to put this.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lif ... d=msedgntp
Baby Lilibet could grow up to be President of the US, according to this article.
Cue the birthers' outrage in 3, 2, 1...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lif ... d=msedgntp
Baby Lilibet could grow up to be President of the US, according to this article.
Cue the birthers' outrage in 3, 2, 1...
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Oh, some Birdsite warblers are already claiming she is not eligible. I pointed out that nope, she is indeed eligible. Crickets.
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
So the federal government filed its reply to the Constitution Association dude's case. (H/t N10! )
The reply is actually better than the original motion to set aside entry of default. It adequately addresses the main points about service, i.e., yes they need to serve the feds, no, mailing something to the White House wasn't sufficient.
And, of course, no standing. Taitz's fails (Drake and Grinols) are cited, and there's a shoutout to Berg.
Dismissal will inevitably follow; the only remaining question is when will this assignment find its way to the top of the shipping clerk's inbox.
The reply is actually better than the original motion to set aside entry of default. It adequately addresses the main points about service, i.e., yes they need to serve the feds, no, mailing something to the White House wasn't sufficient.
And, of course, no standing. Taitz's fails (Drake and Grinols) are cited, and there's a shoutout to Berg.
Dismissal will inevitably follow; the only remaining question is when will this assignment find its way to the top of the shipping clerk's inbox.
- noblepa
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Oh, I'm sure that, if Lilibet were to run for president in 2056, the first year she would be old enough, some birthers would crawl out of the woodwork and argue that "her father was not a citizen when she was born, so she's not a NBC". Others will argue that she was born with allegiance to the UK, which makes her ineligible, despite the fact that no law or provision of the Constitution says this. How is one born with allegiance to anything, anyway? Allegiance is a choice, not a birthright.
IMHO, she is eligible.
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
The OG birthers will all be dead by then. (NADT.)
Donofrio might still be around, if his rock-n-roll lifestyle doesn't get to him first.
- noblepa
- Posts: 2546
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
- Location: Bay Village, Ohio
- Occupation: Retired IT Nerd
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
The Constitution Association dudes don't know when they've lost, so today they filed: an amended response to the OSC; request for a hearing; and request for class status.
The amended response seems ... fine. Whatever error correction was made seems unnecessary, but whatevs.
The request for a hearing is cute. (The court will "nope" that.)
And the request for class status is very short, and very much not in compliance with any and every requirement in how to certify a class-action lawsuit.
When did ineffectual paper throwing become a sport?
H/t: N10!
The amended response seems ... fine. Whatever error correction was made seems unnecessary, but whatevs.
The request for a hearing is cute. (The court will "nope" that.)
And the request for class status is very short, and very much not in compliance with any and every requirement in how to certify a class-action lawsuit.
When did ineffectual paper throwing become a sport?
H/t: N10!
- SuzieC
- Posts: 979
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:25 am
- Location: Blue oasis in red state
- Occupation: retired lawyer; yoga enthusiast
- Verified: ✅
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Ummm hello? Has someone never heard of FRCP 23?bob wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:45 pm The Constitution Association dudes don't know when they've lost, so today they filed: an amended response to the OSC; request for a hearing; and request for class status.
The amended response seems ... fine. Whatever error correction was made seems unnecessary, but whatevs.
The request for a hearing is cute. (The court will "nope" that.)
And the request for class status is very short, and very much not in compliance with any and every requirement in how to certify a class-action lawsuit.
When did ineffectual paper throwing become a sport?
H/t: N10!
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Everything was filed by George Rombach ("JD, PhD, CPA").
So, to answer your question: No. (Or: Yes, Rombach has never heard of Rule 23.)
- northland10
- Posts: 5988
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
- Location: Northeast Illinois
- Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
- Verified: ✅ I'm me.
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Birther cases thrive off the principle of fractal wrongness. However, they are slacking in the how many ways they can get things wrong. Gondor and that MLB case have, well, hit it out of the park.
101010
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Gibbs, on his weekly Gallups-esque radio show, is talking about their lawsuit again.
It is hi-larious in that it is the exact same Nothing, Like You've Heard Before. The same wild overconfidence, the same "powerful people are paying attention," the same "sources tell me they're nervous" chatter, etc.
The only thing different is Gibbs' insistence that the 10th Amendment gives them standing.
It is hi-larious in that it is the exact same Nothing, Like You've Heard Before. The same wild overconfidence, the same "powerful people are paying attention," the same "sources tell me they're nervous" chatter, etc.
The only thing different is Gibbs' insistence that the 10th Amendment gives them standing.
- Reality Check
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 3:46 pm
- Verified: ✅ Curmudgeon
- Contact:
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
For the attorneys:
What are the purposes of these three orders on the docket concerning the plaintiffs' motions?
What are the purposes of these three orders on the docket concerning the plaintiffs' motions?
Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge Todd W. Robinson Accepting Document: First Amended Response to the Ex Parte Application and Cause why this Action Should not be Dismissed, from Plaintiff George F.X. Rombach. Non-compliance with local rule(s), Supplemental documents require court order. Nunc Pro Tunc 6/10/21. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sxa) (Entered: 06/11/2021)
andNotice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge Todd W. Robinson Accepting Document: Request for a Hearing on the Ex Parte Application and Cause Why this Action should not be Dismissed, from Plaintiff George F.X. Rombach. Non-compliance with local rule(s), OTHER: Pursuant to the provisions of Civil Local Rule 7.1.b all hearing dates for any motion must be obtained from the law clerk of the judge to whom the case is assigned.. Nunc Pro Tunc 6/10/21. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sxa) (Entered: 06/11/2021)
Seems they did not follow various rules.Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge Todd W. Robinson Accepting Document: Request for Recognition of Class Status, from Plaintiff George F.X. Rombach. Non-compliance with local rule(s), OTHER: LR 23.1(a) - The complaint, or other pleading asserting a class action must bear the legend Class Action below the docket number. Nunc Pro Tunc 6/10/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sxa) (Entered: 06/11/2021)
- KickahaOta
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:17 pm
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Correct. These notices are the judge saying 'You didn't follow this rule, but I'm going to let it slide.'
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Yeah; in this case:KickahaOta wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:27 pm Correct. These notices are the judge saying 'You didn't follow this rule, but I'm going to let it slide.'
1. They didn't seek leave to file their amended response;
2. Hearing dates are set by the judge's shipping clerk; and
3. You must caption every class-action pleading with the words "class action," including the pleading seeking class action.
These dudes can't follow the local rules yet know the U.S. Constitution better than every judge.
- Estiveo
- Posts: 2431
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:50 am
- Location: Inland valley, Central Coast, CA
- Verified: ✅
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
Well, local rules are unconstitutional because the Bill of Rights doesn't even mention local rules and that's just a trick these activist judges use to try and trick us so there.
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
P&E: The Quo Warranto Avenue:
This understatement is uncharacteristic.Joseph DeMaio wrote:OK, in the continuing simmering stew of issues bubbling around the 2020 general election and the results of same, one particular issue caught your humble servant’s eye. That issue concerns the role now being played by “The My Pillow Guy,” Mike Lindell. While his heart may be in the right place, an argument could be made that he is not receiving the best of legal advice.
DeMaio was wordy but ... ultimately correct?Specifically, he has recently claimed via YouTube that, sometime during the month of July, 2021, a case based on a “writ of quo warranto” will be brought directly in the U.S. Supreme Court (“USSC”) which will result in a 9-0 (i.e., unanimous) decision overturning the 2020 general election and reinstalling President Trump into office. Really? It will be interesting to see if that YouTube video stays posted much longer.
* * *
Accordingly, even if initiated by sundown today, the promised quo warranto relief likely won’t happen in this case at all and, in any event, not during July 2021.
Mr. Lindell might do well to confer with his advisors again, as anomalies of this nature only supply oxygen and ammunition to those committed to the rubric: “Move along… nothing to see here….”
Re: The dregs of birther remainders.
So: American Samoa.
American Samoa is an unincorporated territory, and its citizens are considered U.S. nationals, and not U.S. citizens. A district court had ruled they were U.S. citizens, but today the 10th Cir. reversed that ruling.
What may be of interest to those here is part of the majority's reasoning:
American Samoa is an unincorporated territory, and its citizens are considered U.S. nationals, and not U.S. citizens. A district court had ruled they were U.S. citizens, but today the 10th Cir. reversed that ruling.
What may be of interest to those here is part of the majority's reasoning:
If the Vattel humpers find this, we're doomed.10th Cir. wrote:[W]e do not understand Wong Kim Ark as commanding that we “must apply the English common law rule for citizenship to determine” the outcome of this case, as the district court phrased it. Wong Kim Ark never went so far. Instead, Wong Kim Ark instructs us that the Citizenship Clause, as with the rest of the Constitution, “must be interpreted in the light of the common law.” ... We take the general meaning of “in the light of” to mean “in context, through the lens of, or taking into consideration.” It is a phrase that introduces persuasive, not binding, authority. Wong Kim Ark therefore tells us to consider the common law in hopes that it sheds light on the constitutional question before us. It does not incorporate wholesale the entirety of English common law as governing precedent.