With the Republican National Convention scheduled to begin tomorrow (July 17), where Donald Trump has garnered enough delegates to be elected on the first ballot, it would seem that the eligibility of another losing candidate is moot. Still, the question of whether the Canadian-born Ted Cruz and persons like him are eligible to be president is likely to continue to clog the electoral process in the future unless some guidance from the Supreme Court is forthcoming. Unlike Barack Obama, nothing prevents Ted Cruz from running for president again in the future.
Several lawsuits challenging Cruz, including one from Carmon Elliott of Pennsylvania, were filed. Such lawsuits present difficulties to plaintiffs and challengers, that of demonstrating standing, including whether the courts even have jurisdiction. These problems were articulated before when the Mexican-born George Romney ran for President in 1968: Prof. Charles Gordon’s paper, “Who Can Be President Of The United States: The Unresolved Enigma” details the issues. The difficulty is establishing standing, both individual harm to the challenger and the court’s jurisdiction to hear a question of presidential eligibility in general–Presidential eligibility might be a non-justiciable political question. The lower court in Pennsylvania ruled that it had jurisdiction and decided the case on the merits, concluding that Ted Cruz was eligible to be elected president. The court essentially defined “natural born citizen” as a “citizen from birth.” That decision was affirmed on appeal.
Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo, a frequent litigator on presidential eligibility questions, is representing Elliott before the Supreme Court and writes about Elliott’s appeal in his most recent blog post, “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.” Apuzzo and his fellow birthers have a lot riding on this case because if the Pennsylvania court decision becomes precedent, it means birther legal theories are repudiated at the highest level, relegating them once more to the dingy backwaters of conspiracy theory. While the specific question of a foreign father is not asked (the appeal is focused on foreign-born), if Cruz is eligible, then Obama must be also. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the fuzzy status quo remains.
The case is No. 16-13. Response due August 1. The petition.
Update: Cruz has waived response.
Case DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
The only presidents who could be legally elected President as merely American citizens had to be born before our Constitution was ratified. All after that are required to be “natural born” which Obama is not and never will be simply because his father was never an American. Too bad & so sad it appears Kenyan-born BHO is The Antichrist.
[Moved from the Selective Service thread. Doc]
Would you change your opinion should the Supreme Court rule in Cruz’s favor (since Cruz had a non-citizen father)?
Proposed answer: No, he would still be The Antichrist.
The Founders don’t agree but I’m sure you don’t care about that.
Re: Cruz eligibility lawsuit reaches the Supreme Court
Not sure how one thinks the Principle [natural born Citizen] would be repudiated at the highest level , or how [standing] was ascertained by the lower Courts as I haven’t read the Case, or Attorney Puzzo’s Article Post about it.
On the outset however one thing is clear
“Citizen from birth.” is a clear repudiation of the U.S. Constitution’s Article II. Section 1. C-5’s “Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”.
The Adoption of “Citizen at birth” would clearly be (is) a Legislative Mandate’s intervention and a Judicial Branch mistake.
It seems strange the Court’s weakness on the matter is an estrangement of the Legislative History of 240 years.
While the Legislature has often in the 240 years of U.S. History proposed unconstitutional Legislation the Judicial Branch has checked it, on this particular Principle the Judicial Branch proposes it’s own unconstitutional bias; a perfect example of Legislation from the Bench in contrast to U.S. History. (in the 95% guidance radius) Don’t think that’s important?
FBI Director James Comey said the measure of not recommending charges was the consideration that there has only been (one) case of espionage brought to the Bench under the narrowed field of legal charge the FBI extended 30 Million Dollars tax paid criminal investigation towards or in the Hillary Clinton usurpation of Secretary of State Office with her Private Servers.
Don’t you just loathe the fact she wanted no risk for her personal communications being made Public but gave so little regard for The People’s through that Office she held being made known? There is a compromise to see there and you don’t come out a Winner.
A.G. Lynch confirmed [criminal code] involving the action of beating FOIA Laws with a bull whip were not considered in the usurpation of the Secretary of State’s Office.
If the measure of Democratic Party Office holders, and Judges is to circumvent the Law, the measure will be melted by Republican Leadership with the pat-on-the-back of precedent Democrats have institutionalized with the abscondsion of the Constitution of the Republic for which we stand.
The Rule of Law is being categorically changed and it’s settling into the General Population that we are witnessing in broad strokes across the Nation.
San Bernardino, Orlando, Dallas, NY,Indiana, Minnesota, Baton Rouge, the disrespect of Law is being seen and the Police are taking hits.
If you do not see the corolation of Politicians and Judges taking the Law into their own hands and the People doing the same, your very unfamiliar with the concept of [corruption being used to stop corruption] as it [reaps what it sows] in its Harvest.
You may think the usurpation of the Office of President and the Office of Secretary of State have nothing to do with it. I think it has everything to do with it, and it’s making your neighborhoods and community less safe.
So you can say all you want about Birthers and laugh and ridicule us all you want, but know that mentality has a direction that is unlawful and your support of that will ultimately prove exactly what I said in my Writ of Certiorari in that the very existence of the Court will come into question.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg affirmed in her somewhat nutty affirmation that if DJT is elected “everything is up for grabs”, I wonder if she knows that includes the Court’s Foundation? I wonder if she understands her participation in doing what she does not want to happen?
That is and was the Price the Justices of the SCOTUS have affirmed in their abscondsion of Law and maybe in some way you’ll find that “profitable”? I don’t know your financial investment structure but I can tell you this is much bigger than you ever supposed and it’s going to get very personal.
One thing I do really like about Doc, I honestly believe he is a God fearing man. Those type of men will be the first when they have been the last to admit a mistake is happening as the consequences of hell begin to rattle the screen door and make their way in.
You see, I have been the brunt receiver of Obama’s Hell for many years and you have’nt tasted what I’ve had a steady diet of. But that is going to change, and the witnesses are going to pile up the dead until your devastated. How long you last and resist I don’t know. I’ve lasted quite awhile.
But I’m pretty tough in the places I’ve been and what I’ve survived, that you also ridicule me about in sport. I really do not object or disagree that your good menand women here.
I just think your confused about comparing the Qualifications for the Office of President with going 5mph over the speed limit. Wow! Delusion doesn’t began to describe it.
That is what you’all believe. It’s no big deal. (?) When Cody Robert Judy gets involved to the degree of 15 Cases across the United States in a Brief of Legal Work that would stack five feet tall, it’s not because my ego is that BIG or I somehow enjoy the rewards first hand with great publicity, it’s because you are in that much trouble with the Lord. If you don’t think the Lord has anything to do with right or wrong, because he’s regulated to Sunday in your life and wouldn’t dream of interfering in political test think again Christian.
The Witness of the Bipartisan Record stands brilliant in the Court of the Most High. You think it’s an exaggeration that men will hide in the caves and wish the rocks would fall upon them rather than catching a glimpse of God’s Judgement upon them?
It’s not, and it’s not without its Good Measure either. Of course in God’s hand… it’s all good. Though offenses must come,… woes to those whom they come by.
Who in their right mind would pick Mario out of all the lawyers admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court to represent them in an eligibility case?
Well, I went to the guy’s page, and there’s so MUCH concentrated silliness there I have a hard time thinking he’s for real.
That’s as far as I got. That seemed to cover it, though.
You just demonstrated every thing I wrote about. Denial.. of the obvious.
Excerpt 1
[Cruz contended that a person born to at least one U.S. citizen parent, regardless of where the child may be born, if a citizen at birth under any law, is an Article II natural born citizen through inheritance of citizenship from the parent (jus sanguinis) and without needing to be born in the United States (jus soli). ]
Excerpt 2
[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.]
My Comment awaiting moderation:
Mr. Apuzzo two questions:
1) If the Court were to hear this Case would it open a flood gate of cases heretofore rejected on damages? Reference Judy v. Obama SCOTUS Case # 12-5276 & 14-9396
How curious it would be for the Court to consider a Citizens rights but not a Presidential Candidates in the Race 2008, 2012, and 2016 http://www.codyjudy.us
2) Why do you think the lower Courts in this Case interceded in [opinion] on when standing was obviously the preferred way to handle Obama’s Ineligibility Challenges?
If you think by chance an Motion for an enjoinder would help your Case, my current and active Presidential Candidacy in the Democratic Party is at your service.
If by chance the period to modify or enjoin is not over. My latest Case 14-9396 was dismissed by a cruel and arbitrary denial of a Motion for Forma Pauperis.
Quite an embarrassment to the pay-to-play scheme of the Court.
http://www.codyjudy.us
CRJ
Wouldn’t that be something if a [mistake] in a Ruling Opinion by a [State Supreme Court] actually invoked the U.S. Supreme Court hearing the Case?
Wow! That would be BIG trouble for Obama’s “Legacy”.
The federal courts have not agreed with Stg. Prepper’s opinion. For example:
Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”– Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0
I refer you to my previous response.
The #DemocraticParty #DNC is asking it’s Members to Support a despotic narcissistic Liar whose actions are Crooked #Democrats You would be much better off supporting #CRJ2016 #SuperDelegates at the #DemNatConvention if you want to beat #Trump2016 We cannot undo the Facts she lied to EVERYONE! I cannot support nor endorse this malignancy detrimental to our Party. You have two weeks left to lose in November! Support the last man standing http://www.codyjudy.us
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1230941233607324&id=510896692278452
Well if I have to choose between liar, facist liar and crazy, I think I’ll stick with liar.
Hillary has lied, and padded her resume, but I do not recall her ever doing anything to intentionally hurt the country, or for to act in a way that makes her unfit to be president. Trump, on the other hand, stirs up racial hatred for his own cause almost daily. He comes across more like one of the bad guys in a Tom Clancy novel than anything else I can think of. Hillary is flawed, but Trump is evil.
I got a bit further before the futility of the exercise caused me to stop.
Boy, I love Tom Clancy novels. Hillary’s three years older now then when Tom made Obama’s “Dead Pool List” at 66.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2013/10/11/ex-cia-agent-says-obama-andrew-breitbart-tom-clancy-assassinated/
I read [Hunt for Red October] after the movie was made by one of my Horse Training Clients John Mctiernan- Producer. ☺
Yeah, I trained a Palomino Jumper for him.❤ Celeste Ce-Ce Huston , widow of John Huston turned him on to me as a good trainer she had used. 👍
https://www.google.com/search?q=john+mctiernan+movies&oq=john+mctyrnin&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l3.11115j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#mie=e%2C%2CThe%20Hunt%20for%20Red%20October%2CH4sIAAAAAAAAAONgFuLUz9U3MKowzY1XAjMtc1LKK7V4A1KLivPzQvJ988syUwFt5sxlJwAAAA
He is yet another pathetic birther whose hatred of a black president has caused a rift between him and his family. “The single thing that saddens me the most in this life isn’t how many Christians and/or Republicans insist on believing BHO is somehow legally their President. The hard-part is forgiving my own family members for actually believing the likes of that illegal-alien thug Obama and ridiculing me for telling the truth about him.”
As we often advise birthers: if you don’t want to be ridiculed, stop being ridiculous.
Well out of the two of you only you are a convicted felon
I sense Judy is jealous. Apuzzo’s case will actually make it to conference before getting denied because someone forked over the printing and filing costs. Judy couldn’t even properly fill out the forms to make IFP status.
Question for the attorneys. Following is an excerpt from Apuzzo’s petition:
In my limited experience reading case citations, one gets the sense of what is being claimed from the quoted material, but here the quoted material is so limited as to say nothing in and of itself. So is Apuzzo losing points with this text from page 33?
I’m going to pat myself on the back for the legal knowledge I’ve gained from blogging here. When Apuzzo put Roe v. Wade in his citations list, I knew why without having to look it up.
What damages would there be if Cruz were found ineligible? He lost.
You seem to think this has something to do with Obama, but it doesn’t. In the extremely unlikely event that the Court were to hear the case and the further extremely unlikely event that they were to find Cruz ineligible, it would be based on his birth in Canada.
The facts of the 2 cases are totally different. While the odds they would find Cruz ineligible are minuscule, the odds that they would find Obama ineligible retroactively 8 years after the fact are absolutely zero. Kelvin scale, absolute zero, impossible to go lower.
I think Apuzzo went off track when he relied on the 5th and 14th Amendments. Once he goes there, he loses actual injury and has to rely on hypotheticals. Elliott doesn’t have standing to make a claim like that. He is, in my opinion, on much firmer ground when he argues that the case is not moot.
I frankly didn’t even get that far.
I did get through “Cody Robert Judy,” and that was it.
The chances of SCOTUS taking the case are as zero as with previous birther cases.
So birthers will be able to continue spinning their “they are evading the issue” yarn.
You know, politicians DO lie. I learned that when I was like 8 years old. If “the candidate lied” was a disqualifier for serving elected office, it’d be anarchy. At the very least, you’d have to disqualify Donald Trump too
I admit Hillary Clinton lied in regards to her handling of the classified E-Mails. But I just don’t care. She still has decades of experience in government and the plain truth is that she is just more qualified. Trump is willfully ignorant about everything it takes to be president, and it is transparently obvious that he seeks only to serve himself and not the public. Clinton probably wants to serve herself too. Being president seems like a pretty lousy job; I doubt ANYONE would be crazy enough to go through it for purely altruistic reasons. It’s got a fantastic benefits package, but you could probably beat the $400,000 a year salary in the private sector.
What I took away from Comey’s statement about the decision not to prosecute was that Hillary Clinton was reckless, but unlike, say, Edward Snowden, she was not intentionally trying to distribute classified information and undermine national security. It’s the difference between an executive at Comcast leaving a folder of valuable trade secrets on a table at Starbucks versus that same executive directly mailing them to the CEO of Verizon.
Also…. for an alleged Antichrist, Barack Obama is doing a pretty terrible job. He’s down to the last 6 months of his 8 years as president, and he hasn’t even added ONE other country to the Antichrist’s global empire. And aren’t we supposed to have legally mandated marks on our foreheads or right hands too? I have nothing on my forehead except and ugly zit and nothing on my hand except a reminder to buy milk, yet I can still buy and sell things with no problem.
Unfortunately for those who would like the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the matter, Esquire Apuzzo has injected his own crank nonsense into what had been a serious legal argument. Carmon Elliott’s petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, prepared by an apparently competent attorney, had argued:
“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.”
https://www.scribd.com/document/305926194/Elliott-v-Cruz-SCOPA-Appellants-Brief-Final-With-TOC-and-TOA
I disagree with that argument, as did the legal authorities that reached it, but there are a few serious scholars that take that position. Mr. Elliott’s argument had nothing to do with Cruz’s father’s citizenship until Mario Apuzzo vandalized it. Apuzzo threw in the twofer-birther crankery, which has no merit in law as Mr. Apuzzo should know from the times he tried it before. The petition keeps bringing up that at the time of R. Ted Cruz’s birth his father was not a citizen. Why inject that garbage into Mr. Elliott’s case?
INAL but I can recognize meaningless gobbledygook when I read it.
Educate me. What did she lie about? Despite all those hearings and investigations, I still haven’t detected any evidence that she lied about anything what-so-ever.
Can you point me at the testimony where she lied?
It’s in there, as you note, but it is not a prominent theme. As I recall I got pretty far in before it appeared.
Apuzzo cites Vattel but he doesn’t explain how Vattel had anything to do with American citizenship. I suppose he has been telling that lie for so long he thinks everyone buys into it.
His argument about dual citizenship and allegiance of Americans born abroad is also weak. Many Americans that fit his skewed definition of natural born citizen are born with dual citizenship. He provides no evidence of correlation between citizenship at birth and allegiance.That’s another axiom that Birthers all accept without evidence.
Apuzzo of course cite’s Jay’s letter but fails to mention that in the context of history Jay’s concern was about someone from one of the European royal families being installed as commander in chief. At the time of Jay’s letter in June 1787 the office of president as we know it didn’t even exist yet and it wasn’t even clear that the president and commander in chief would be the same person.
Hilliary needs to be locked up. It is totally bizarre how the FBI came to nonsense recommendation not to indict her. I suppose if Hillary was 100% Absolutely and totally incompotent with virtually no understanding of national security, classified information or intelligience, I could see the lack of intent. Totally absolute stupidity and incompetence is not a crime. I guess now we know why Hillary resigned from SOS. Obama’s appointment of Hillary Clinton to SOS is in my opinion analgolous to Obama appointing Robert Cody Judy or Walter Fitzpatrick to Attorney General or to the Supreme Court. As for Trump, he has a big mouth but I don’t anything wrong with him.
—-
The main thing here is that he is misrepresenting the holding in Wong Kim Ark. Of course, the Court never said those born in the country to one or two qualifying alien parents are not natural born citizens.
As for the use of quotes, it is not unusual to use them to denote specific terminology. To be generous, one could conclude that Apuzzo is using the quotes to point out that the Court did not use the term “natural born citizen,” and instead used the term “citizen of the United States,” But he doesn’t actually say/clarify the significance he attributes to that. Instead, he just lies about the holding.
Many of your fellow conservatives don’t share your rosy view:
http://theresurgent.com/the-donald-trump-charade/
and here:
http://theresurgent.com/clinton-and-brock-crank-it-up-trump-ghost-writer-comes-clean/
I’ll have to look it up later to be certain, but as I recall, she said that there hadn’t been classified information in any E-Mails sent to people without clearance to view that information, but Comey said in his statement that there were definitely uncleared people in the chain.
Though now that I think about it, since my own memory on the matter is so foggy and I only read this two weeks ago, it could be that Hillary Clinton herself was just making a mistake.
Slightly related: I am currently in the process of getting a Secret clearance for a job I’m supposed to be starting soon. I’m always nervous about talking about the clearance process around my parents, because I just know they’re gonna steer it to some snarky remark about Hillary Clinton.
Add that to the list of jawdroppingly dumb things john has said.
Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative unit of the Tampa Bay Times has caught Hillary Clinton in 3 bald-faced (“pants on fire”) lies.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
Politifact has caught Donald Trump in 34 bald-faced (“pants on fire”) lies.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
If Hillary Clinton should be imprisoned for her lies, Donald Trump should receive capital punishment for his.
Based on your use of logic, grammar and general deep thinking, I make you for a summa cum laude graduate of Trump University.
It’s actually a bit murky. Comey said that the FBI identified e-mails which contained classified information, but he was unclear about how many of those e-mails were actually marked classified. Hillary’s position is that the e-mails in question were not marked classified, so she wasn’t aware that they contained classified information.
I believe that there were some e-mails which were marked classified, but those had to do with her schedule so it was up to her if she wanted to pass them along to people who didn’t have security clearances.
I don’t think john could afford to attend Trump University.
You’re calling Robert Cody Judy incompetent? Those are fighting words.
Enjoy all your comments-Humorous & Serious always a good combination for a Blog. I read The Writ last night and … WOW! I was impressed with how many points were well and clearly articulated.
I’ve always admired Apuzzo’s style and with the limitations placed on Writs at the SCOTUS it’s very difficult to get it all in but I think touched every base well enough legally.
A Few Highlights
I think the Number #1 (((Screaming Highlight))) is the fact if the SCOTUS does not Hear this Case a new dynamic has been Birthed in [Standing] by a State Supreme Court.. can’t imagine the Court liking that as much as they might want to avoid it!
Mix that up with pulling the covers off “The Political Question Doctrine”, which the lower Court did masterfully, and you get the idea of why Obama’s Hemroids have kicked up this week.
Eventually you can count on a State Court Judge wanting to show how smart he is. Lol
Those who would like to inoculate Obama from this are the ones who are comfortable with the seven and a half years and are those who Obama would say are “extremely careless” and “short-sighted” as the 7.7 years can still be wiped clean finding he’s ineligible.
Oh, that won’t take his memories away from strolling down the White House Hallways, or sitting on the White House Throne to take a dump, but guest have the privilege too, and when that parts over its how your remembered that’s in the toilet with this Case and on Obama’s mind I dare say is exposed as a brain dislodged from its cavity.
I wouldn’t take it lightly that SCOTUS has never detailed this Principle or that with only 6 months left Obama no longer has the Leverage of an Election at Stake.
This was Major Play in days now Gone. Obama’s tank is empty. .and it represents the Best Time to handle it.
Apuzzo does a great job explaining that, and that the Judiciary is in Fact uniquely qualified to do it as Congress is vested only with defining Naturalization or Adoption Citizenship issues by the Constitution Powers defining it’s authority, and and was never empowered to altar “Nature” or “natural born Citizen”.
You might say SCOTUS is placed in a unique position with this Case and it now has more to do with STOPPING rather then STARTING- BIG DIFFERENCE
I can hear them now.. cussing that STATE COURT for not getting the memo; they were not suppose to step in the “do-do” on the White House lawn thats been surrounded by an electrified fence.
For the comment here relaying Apuzzo didn’t give weight to Vattel, I beg to differ. It was given as much as Common Nomenclature of Blackstone or British Common Law that is pushed till dead around here with barely a whimper of how Ben Franklin and George Washington remarked Vattel’s work came in good season!
Apuzzo’s analysis of Wong Kim Ark is interesting (as in dishonest). He claims that the court declared WKA was a “citizen of the United States” as if that was a distinct class of citizenship separate from natural born citizen. Of course in the opinion Justice Gray spends multiple paragraphs developing the common law interpretation of natural born citizens in the United States as derived from England and natural born subject.
There is no valid interpretation that WKA created a distinct class of citizenship. It merely defined who had been natural born citizens from the days of the founding through the adoption of the 14th Amendment. Apuzzo is careful to avoid the term “14th Amendment citizen” as that is a favorite of racists and and xenophobes.It is hard to see a distinction from Apuzzo’s “citizen of the United States” however.
It’s too bad all the challenges against Cruz were filed by crackpots. There was a chance to get decent case filed by a major candidate. No one stepped up to the plate however.
I agree that the case is not moot. Cruz could and quite possibly will run for president again.
However, the standing issue dooms this appeal. Even if Cruz is not eligible, there is no particularized injury to Elliott. The injury, if any, is shared by every American. I doubt that Cruz will bother to file a response. It will then be scheduled for a conference and will be denied.
As for CRJ, even if Cruz were ruled to be ineligible it would not help CRJ’s argument about his mythical “two-citizen parent” requirement. If Cruz is ever found to be ineligible, it will be because he was born in Canada, not because of the citizenship of his father.
Obama Heartburn
The Third Circuit – Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
(Delaware, New Jersey, [Pennsylvania], Virgin Island)
That’s a far cry from Sotomayor or Kagan!
The KEY is not whither Cruz is eligible it’s defining a Standard that is going to keep on coming up. That Standard everyone will toe – the-line to including Obama.
The Soil and Parents are all part of defining it. How could it not be if Cruz is claiming one parents good enough.
There’s a host of foreign interest served in inherited Citizenship as dual allegiances
You are both verbose. I’ll give you that.
Unsurprisingly, you are wrong about that, because getting things wrong is what you do best. Judge Pellegrini’s decision was not reported. Do you know what that means? It means that it cannot be cited as precedent.
The Supreme Court is not going to grant cert on this case, anymore than it was going to grant cert on your case.
Oh for crying out loud.
I have no doubt Apuzzo is working for free. I would guess all the reasonable professors (and other constitutional experts) who opined that Cruz was not eligible have since moved on to more topical subjects. But not Apuzzo!: He will continue to insist that Cruz and President Obama are not eligible for the rest of his days, as he has no other life.
I think Apuzzo went off track much earlier. Like eight years ago. 😉
Yes.. besides the Heartburn Obama might be crying out loud. Nice point!
I’ll tell you one thing, as a Presidential Candidate I need to know if Ted Cruz is Qualified in the Future.
That’s standing!
The case is still, IMO moot at present. It could become unmoot if he does, but courts tend not to want to rule on cases that MIGHT arise.
You can’t retroactively toe a standard. Not that they are going to adopt your anyway, but on the .0000000001% chance they did, it could only apply going forward.
Okay, let’s have a close look at “Apuzzo’s style.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwmfisorUcc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHKJQ__W_4k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JohAu0BR_w0
An example– starting about 6:10 in the second video, Mario tries to convince Judge Masin, on behalf of his clients Nicholas “Nick” Purpura and Theodore “Ted” Moran, that there’s something fishy about Barack Obama being called “Barry” in high school:
Mario:
Next is a P(3), and this is the yearbook of Mr. Obama when he was in high school. Again, it’s the same– it’s the same…
Judge Masin:
Which one is that– which one is that counsel? Oh, that’s the uh, the uh..
Mario:
Yes, it looks like this…
Judge Masin:
The Oahu one
Mario:
Yes.
Judge Masin:
In 1979?
Mario:
Yes. it’s just– again it’s just a (?) timeline. Basically this says Barry… Obama. BARRY Obama. In high school.
Judge Masin:
So in other words, if– in other words if he was called– if his– let’s assume– all right–and and we have a picture. We have a picture here and I can probably
Ms. Hill:
(Laughs)
Judge Masin:
reasonably assume this is the President of the United states in this picture, and it says Barry Obama. So in other words– in other words every person who has had a nickname used, ah, for them– by the way I note the last name here is Obama– every person who has had a nickname used for them in high school, there’s a question about their identity? Come on, counsel!
Mario:
Well that—no…
Judge Masin:
Let’s be, let’s be– i mean if this said Soetoro, I’d say yeah, maybe–it’s Barry Obama! It’s Barack Obama. You know, I mean how many people in this room, I don’t know, I– I don’t want to take a poll, running a poll– how many people in this room or in this building probably had a nickname used for them maybe when they were younger or even, even today and– and you’re going to suggest that that suggests there’s a question about their identity? Especially since we have a picture here that we probably all can pretty well recognize as being the uh… it looks pretty…pretty clear this is the President.
Mario:
Yeah your honor, a– you know in, in itself, okay– but we’re presenting a totality of circumstances here. So we can’t take things out of context and say, oh well it’s his nickname that’s ridiculous– yeah yeah, yeah, it’s ridiculous standing by itself…
Judge Masin:
With all due respect, and I’m not talking about these other documents that have the other names and so forth– this is a far stretch, counsel. This is a pretty far stretch.
Mario:
Well the only thing i’m offering, your honor, is that his name is Barry Soetoro. That’s all I’m saying.
Judge Masin:
No, it doesn’t say that. It says “Barry Obama.”
Mario:
I’m sorry. I’m sorry, your honor–I misspoke. I misspoke– Barry, Barry, uh, Obama.
Judge Masin:
I– I conceded to you that if it said Barry Soetoro, maybe, maybe there’s a little bit for you. It doesn’t say Barry Soetoro, it says Barry Obama.
Mario:
Yes– no, I misspoke, your honor. I, I– clearly, I said before it was Barry Obama.
Judge Masin:
This would be the same– this would essentially be the same, counsel– my legal name happens to be Jeff but everybody thinks it’s Jeffrey. And if everybody in high school called me Jeff with my last name, you’d be suggesting that with my picture that this is some question about my identity? Move on, counsel.
Mario:
No, your honor…
Judge Masin:
I’m giving you leeway…
Mario:
The totality…
Judge Masin:
There’s a limit to my leeway.
Yeah, I see what you mean. That’s some “style.” I understand perfectly well why YOU’D admire it.
Okay, never mind free– who in their right mind would even let Mario pay THEM to represent them in an eligibility case before the Supreme Court?
In not sure Apuzzo’s ever had a Presidential Candidate as a Plaintiff in this regard. . So let me qualify my statement to writing.
Arguing standing without a Presidential Candidate is no doubt difficult.
But what would be harder would be Obama in Court arguing Cruz was another great example of Political Leadership..lol 😂
Judge Jeff Jeffery Masin from NJ administrative law judge working in the executive branch.. how Judicial Branch can you go lol
He’d vote for Obama if Oscar from sesame Street was printed on the ballot.. lol
Apuzzo’s dreck will be denied by SCOTUS. Even if it was accepted, it won’t reopen previously rejected cases. Judy’s case was dismissed because it frivolously failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted.
Among the things Judy doesn’t understand: Jurisdiction and standing. The jurisdiction of state courts is different than the jurisdiction of federal courts, so standing was not necessarily an obstacle in this particular case.
Judy would sound less ignorant if he constantly didn’t misuse words.
Judy appeared on no ballots and received no votes in 2016; his “candidacy” exists only in his head.
Judy’s dismissal was neither cruel nor arbitrary: His IFP application was denied because he could not follow simple directions.
What would be something if Judy could write a plain, simple, understandable sentence.
SCOTUS’ inevitable denial will change nothing: Nothing about standing, nothing about natural-born citizenship, nothing about nothing will change after the long conference and silent denial.
There’s no evidence that President Obama has hemorrhoids, that they recently “kicked up,” or that he even aware of this loser of a case concerning a no-longer relevant issue.
Judy’s repeated references to bowels says more about him than he may realize.
This petitioner will be denied, and, in any event, there is no magic reset button.
Apuzzo has lost every birther case that he has touched; this will the same as all others.
The voices in Judy’s head have been consistently wrong, yet Judy continues to listen to them.
Judy doesn’t even know how to spell “precedent,” let alone how attorneys use it.
If Judy says so, it must be true!
Several adjudicatory bodies have said Cruz is eligible, and none have said that he is not.
That Judy cannot learn from the past dooms him to repeat his mistakes in the future.
Bob said the same thing for 7 years about Gay Marriage.. now it’s changed.
From the prophecies of Sponge-Bob.. 😃 square pants.
Bob’s B.S. has no proof it was filed incorrectly and many Court Witnesses it has been filed correctly before.
What to believe? Humm 😂
Not that it matters, but Apuzzo has, and he still lost.
Not in properly planned lawsuit; several challenges to Cruz and President Obama were brought by people not running for president, and those challengers lost on the merits.
Judy’s fantasies will never come to light.
In both 2012 and 2016, Apuzzo objected to Masin’s ruling to New Jersey’s Secretary of State, who also rejected Apuzzo’s nonsense. Apuzzo then filed a lawsuit in the New Jersey courts. The 2012 case was affirmed (by an actual judicial-branch judge), and the 2016 case remains pending.
There is an exception to the mootness rule when the matter at issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” That is why Doc cited Roe v. Wade a number of posts back. Roe (Norma McCorvey) was not longer pregnant when her case was heard, and Texas argued that her appeal should be dismissed because it was moot. The Supreme Court ruled that it was not moot because it was capable of repetition.
Justice Blackmun noted that if the end of a pregnancy made an abortion case moot, it would be nearly impossible to get a case from the trial court to the Supreme Court within nine months or less. The same principle is true in election eligibility cases. Even if Cruz were the Republican nominee, it would be next to impossible to get a decision from SCOTUS prior to election day.
Judy imagines I once predicted something about same-sex marriage; an interesting fantasy, perhaps, but totally irrelevant.
The SCOTUS Clerk sent Judy a letter explaining the deficiencies in his application; rather than correct them, Judy stamped his foot.
More imaginations from Judy to avoid facing his own shortcomings.
I have a record of correctly predicting the outcome of every birther case. Judy has a perfect record of losing every birther case that he has ever filed. But Judy is entitled to the delusions of his choice.
A single-issue crank with tunnel vision.
* * *
Elliott’s case is moot because the Pennsylvania primary is over. The evading-review exception is technically still in play, but there’s no reason to litigate the issue now.
Competent counsel could do it (Bush v. Gore went through the courts very quickly). Of course, “Apuzzo” and “competent counsel” are words never to be found in the same sentence. 😉
Here’s where I plead ignorance. I understand the rules of standing for federal lawsuits, but I do not understand how an appeal from a state court works, where Elliott apparently did have standing.
It doesn’t matter that Alito is assigned to the Third Circuit. Apuzzo didn’t file an emergency petition. He filed a normal petition for Writ for Certiorari. It will be docketed for the first full conference in the fall term. Justice Alito would only if Apuzzo had filed for some sort of stay.
That’s true. However, US presidential campaigns last longer than the pregnancy of any known mammalian species, including blue whales and elephants….
If you wanted to challenge the eligibility of Cruz you should have sued him.
Why don’t you file an amicus curiae brief? That would be amusing.
28 U.S.C. sec. 1257.
The Court would deny me a Motion for forma pauperis I’d need to file an Amicus Curiae. They only like Friends-of-the-Court who “pay-to-play” if your a Presidential Candidate. It’s precedant now.
Great Point 8 days! When they want they can move quickly!
Judy is yet again wrong: Standing is not an issue for amicus curie briefs. However, they can be filed in SCOTUS only by a lawyer.
Gore v. Bush was a real case litigated by real lawyers; birther nonsense rightfully goes to the bottom of the pile.
He still could… using their “Fear of Trump” to move the Court!😎 Alito would handle all Motions.
Ginsburg said “it’s all up for grabs”
Exactly!
I do like the Fact a future election is not hinging on the decision because it really sucks having those who would bully their way over colleague Candidates just hoping to get away with it before the Court can hear it.
So if I am reading that correctly, the Supreme Court could review the Elliott case if it so chose. And I think Apuzzo’s argument that it is not moot is sufficient.
I’m not willing to attach the DOOMED graphic to this one.
None of the 3 POF entries had to do with her eMail. They were all basically campaign puffery. The ‘landing under fire’ is the most egregious of them – certainly not a good look but hardly in Trumps class.
There was a FALSE rating about her statement about cleared people on the email chain. It was not judged POF. I agree it is not a good look, she should have been prepared for that question, but I judge it a mistake not a lie. There is a difference.
My recollection is that out of a total of 55,000 emails exactly TWO were marked classified. And BOTH of those were acknowledged to have been so marked in error.
“Fear of Trump” is not a valid basis for a motion, “counselor.”
* * *
Apuzzo (implicitly) concedes the case is moot, as Elliott sought only to enjoin Cruz from participating in the Pennsylvania primary. But the primary is over; no relief can now be granted to Elliott.
Apuzzo argues for the exceptions to the mootness doctrine. While technically accurate, the arguments are unpersuasive, as there will be other opportunities to challenge future candidates who might have eligibility “concerns.” There is no simply no reality-based reason for SCOTUS to decide this issue now.
On top of the reality that 99% of all cert. petitions are denied. This case is not 1% worthy, especially considering that no court has disagreed with the lower court’s result.
The Supreme Court can agree to hear any appeal that four Justices want to hear. “The Rule of Four” is a Supreme Court tradition, not a law or a formal rule but I have never known them to violate that tradition.
“The rule of four is a Supreme Court of the United States practice that permits four of the nine justices to grant a writ of certiorari. This is done specifically to prevent a majority of the Court from controlling the Court’s docket.
The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court’s own published rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988.
The “Rule of Four” has been explained by various Justices in judicial opinions throughout the years. For example, Justice Felix Frankfurter described the rule as follows: “The ‘rule of four’ is not a command of Congress. It is a working rule devised by the Court as a practical mode of determining that a case is deserving of review, the theory being that if four Justices find that a legal question of general importance is raised, that is ample proof that the question has such importance. This is a fair enough rule of thumb on the assumption that four Justices find such importance on an individualized screening of the cases sought to be reviewed.”–Wikipedia
Provided SCOTUS has jurisdiction to hear the case. In this instance, it does.
But you are correct: four justices aren’t going to vote to hear this one.
Elliott’s challenge and appeal was timely, but he couldn’t get it to the Supreme Court in time. Without going back, I have the impression that birther cases often suffer from time constraints.
Did anyone point out that Judge Pellegrini linked to Doc’s SCRIBD account copy of Jack Maskell’s 2016 CRS report in his ruling in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court? I sense a conspiracy here.
I did not know that. I am not SUPPOSED to be part of the story.
It’s almost certain that SCOTUS will not grant cert. For one thing, there is no conflicting ruling in any lower court which would create a controversy for SCOTUS to resolve.
The Roe v. Wade pregnancy term is a good example for not only it happening again but the Right for Review tazering the Countries Political Presidential Elections.
How many Billions must we waste on Candidates lies they are qualified with allegiances of foreign Place jus soli or foreign Parent just sanguinis ?
I mean if you want to make ” moot” the United States of America’s Jurisdiction and Citizenship for Global Governance just say so.
But when you do, first give your own U.S Citizenship the courtesy of parting from you. You either have a Nation or you don’t.
Our Elections are about THIS NATION.. yes, we are in the World but we don’t have to be of the World. I get the feeling the way Hillary talks about increasing Syrian Refugees by 500% it might be easier to send her there, where she can Dodge real sniper fire. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/
I have no idea why I was not asked to speak at the Republican Convention? 😂
I don’t know Doc, swallowing the wad of HRC Lies is a sacrifice of Truth. Perhaps your willing to compromise that but eventually it will cost you the Trust at the Bank.
I’m not saying Trump hasn’t cost plenty of people a lot of money. Winning Big usually involves heavy losses and lots of losers.
Bob is correct, I’ve lost everything the living call important. The contrast between Trump and myself might be the contrast of a penny to a Million Dollars.
I can hardly comprehend a hundred thousand ($100,000.00) let alone ten billion ($10,000,000,000.00). Trump probably spends my networth everyday in the time it takes him to take a leak.
There is no Justice without Truth though. No Truth without Faithfulness. We are told not to put our faith in men or arm of the flesh bur Trust in God. I’m reminded of Revelations 19:11
” AND I saw heaven opened,and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True and in righteousness he doth judge and make war”
What would Faithfulness and Truth make war against? It would have to be deceitfulness, disloyalty, treachery, fraud, forgery, and lies [all for the sake] of gaining Power and Glory.
Gaining such on the back of a jackass may have been Jesus’s talent but I’ve honestly never rode a jackass and I’ve no talent or desire to perpetrate lies to get elected.
While I believe Hillary Clinton called the FBI’s Criminal Investigation a “routine security inquiery”
I’m not sure what twisted Truth you could not endure, but I wonder if your entire financial portfolio sacrificed might be that ticket?
Hillary Clinton we learned in the FBI Investigation in essence told you it was safe, but it was gone.
I think Justice Ginsburg was absolutely right when she called DJT a Faker. He didn’t file a single legal Birther Document, but got Huge Dividends for ten minutes on The View.
You might say The Birther Issue was to DJT what one thousand dollars ($1,000) was to Hillary Clinton’s cattle futures investment that paid ninety-nine-thousand ($99,000 ) in a very short 10 months time. He got an awfully lot for no work. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm
Hillary’s Lies to the [Democrats] in the [Order] of securing her [2016 Primary and Caucus Season wins. Here.] She got an awful lot for lying.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157274140860725&id=153080620724
Now, maybe I didn’t win one caucus or primary, but Hillary didn’t win one either.. without lying her ass off. Lying to ALL the folks she wants to represent. She lies when she doesn’t have to lie. Bernie Sanders gave his away. I’m the last man standing in the Democratic Party Election Contest for President.
If the concept of Truth has gone so far from you that there is no value, you’re in the clutches of Lucifer and you’re so far removed from Jesus Christ you may as well start using Lucifer’s name at the end of the blessings on your food so at least you’d have the correct summation of your Credits.
Vattel wrote about many things; to claim it was citizenship where the Framers found him authoritative lacks evidence.
Besides, does George Washington remarking how much he liked Alice in Wonderland mean he intended the US to be ruled by a Red Queen? (Yes, I do know he’d have needed a time machine for that, that’s double irony. ;))
I like many books written on Christianity, doesn’t make me a Christian, let alone someone who wants the Bible to be everyday law.
And when exactly did Franklin say that?
As I recall, he was talking about the French-language edition early on.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression (well, many, but) that because one has standing to bring a case that the case then must have merit. That is not true.
Cody, Trump wins hands down as the most prodigious liar this political season or any other Just google Trump “four pinocchios” or Trump “pants on fire.” He is also a world class belittler, business huckster, violator of landmark civil rights law, labor law, housing laws, and is as well top contender for the title of greatest narcisstic politico in American history.
No, you’re not. The delegates who will be attending the convention don’t even know who you are.
Are you going to be in Philadelphia next week?
The time frame can be tight, but good counsel know how to get cases through the system quickly: Gore v. Bush took only 35 days to litigate from the first filing to SCOTUS’ decision. So it can be done. (And Elliott did not take advantage of means to ensure a prompt decision.)
There is simply no reality-based reason for SCOTUS to take up this particular issue at this time. The next “questionable” candidate will be an adequate vehicle.
CRJ wouldn’t have standing in any event, because he is not, never has been, and never will be a real candidate for president. He didn’t receive a single vote at the Democratic caucus this year.
http://utahdemocrats.org/caucus2016results/
That’s a good point, and it differentiates this case from Roe v. Wade. There were other women besides “Roe” who wanted to have legal abortions and needed SCOTUS to resolve the matter. There won’t be another presidential election until 2020.
Of course, when SCOTUS denies cert it is unlikely that we will know the reasons, unless a justice dissents.
And yet evangelical voters are flocking (pun intended, sorry) to him. As usual, Tom Toles nails it.
http://www.gocomics.com/tomtoles/2016/07/17
Funny how Vattel’s employer, the Elector of Saxony, was not born to two-citizen parents, and neither were his children.
—
Because he doesn’t want to admit he got it from the Dred Scott case.
I don’t think anyone on the Court ever relied so pointedly and specifically on that 1797 edition reference as Justice Daniel did in his singularly odious opinion in Dred Scott. And he did so for no other purpose but excluding persons from citizenship on the basis of race, having already said,
“Now the following are truths which a knowledge of the history of the world, and particularly of that of our own country, compels us to know — that the African negro race never have been acknowledged as belonging to the family of nations; that, as amongst them, there never has been known or recognised by the inhabitants of other countries anything partaking of the character of nationality, or civil or political polity; that this race has been by all the nations of Europe regarded as subjects of capture or purchase, as subjects of commerce or traffic; and that the introduction of that race into every section of this country was not as members of civil or political society, but as slaves, as property in the strictest sense of the term,” 60 US at 475.
I don’t think Chief Justice Waite was referring to “The Law of Nations” when he made that passing reference to natural-born citizens. I think it was an over-the-shoulder response to Dred Scott.
—
That was my impression as well.
I have always thought that the only way SCOTUS would consider the issue is why the candidate was removed from the ballot. This would be specific and peculiar injury. Even then, the court could punt and rule that the states could not remove a candidate for eligibility. Currently in the 9th, they may.
Since the 50 states, and 2 Congresses have not disagreed (or did not express a disagreement) as to the definition of NBC, SCOTUS has no controversy. Birthers do not understand this. A few people disagreeing is not a controversy.
Except access to the Internet.
I think Apuzzo actually cited Scott v Sandford in one of his earlier cases. It was probably Kerchner v Obama. However he did not cite Minor v Happersett in the complaint in that case.
Speaking of Mario Apuzzo’s record on eligibility cases …
I finally got around to writing a blog post to update his record by adding the Cruz eligibility challenge cases. He is 0 for 13 as I have it. Any corrections, additions, or comments would be appreciated.
Birther Attorney Mario Apuzzo continues to rack up the losses
If you are counting each loss as a separate entry, I would add Paige’s 2012 loss in the Vermont Superior Court. Technically Paige filed it, but Apuzzo “assisted” (just like with Paige’s 2016 challenge against Cruz).
bob
Good point. I think it is pretty well documented that Apuzzo helped with the 2012 filing. I can’t get to it now but I will later today.
Refusing to pay contractors what they are owed is a sure-fire way of turning them into losers.
A rational man who has lost everything would step back, analyze what when wrong, and change his behavior.
You, on the other hand, double down on your mistakes and invest your time in a quixotic “campaign” for the presidency which never had a chance of going anywhere. Unless, of course, your campaign is simply a scam to get suckers to pay for a few Happy Meals at McDonald’s.
—-
That’s how I remember it. Seems like Apuzzo finally realized that citing Scott isn’t helpful to his case. But, as you point out, he’s left with a brief that provides no legal authority or even an explanation as to why Vattel should be cited on the question of US citizenship.
Apuzzo should be ashamed of himself for outright lying about the holding in Wong Kim Ark. Lying to the Court about the Court’s own decisions certainly can’t be helpful to his case either.
Pretty far? Apuzzo alludes to it in Question 2, and pushes his crank theory, which had not been Carmon Elliott’s position, in the second paragraph of the Introduction.
This appeal was a long shot even before Mario Apuzzo vandalized it with his Obama denial, but what minuscule chance his client’s cause had, Mr. Apuzzo has trashed. The Court cannot grant cert and put the case on the schedule because doing so would suggest that the petition’s legal theory is other than ludicrous. The Court is not going to allow the possibility of casting doubt on the legitimacy of another branch of government, not even for the time it takes them to decide a case.
In the petition, Mr. Apuzzo cites the six possible criteria from Baker v. Carr for finding a case to be nonjudiciable as a “political question”. By injecting his crank theory, under which the actual President of the United States cannot be President of the United States, Apuzzo himself made three of them apply:
(iv) “the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or
(v) “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or
(vi) “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question”. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
I kept think I had missed one and this was it. I edited the post to add it last night.
If this is true the RNC/Trump Convention show has just jumped the shark.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/anti-immigrant-extremist-joe-arpaio-address-rnc
Arpaio’s hearing is tomorrow; we may know if the criminal referral happens.
You mean besides so many Judicial Branch opinions striking down unconstitutional Legislation? Have you heard of our Check and Balances three legged stool System?
You mean in comparison to the Affirmed Opinion and justifications supporting standing and dismissing the Political Question Doctrine not hearing it confirms?
Here I thought you were Happy about my rehabilitation success. . Voting..taking part positively in Community , standing up for Law and against those who discriminate based on color,race,religion ,and. . Prior servitude.
(?)
I was talking about getting a real job, providing for your family, etc. You waste your time pretending to be a candidate for president and filing frivolous lawsuits.
Speaking of your “candidacy,” how do you expect to win the nomination in Philadelphia next week? Also, I checked with the FEC and you haven’t filed a single financial report since you began your “campaign.”
Well. . I need a $2,500 contribution from you to put me over $5K in the Reportable column at the FEC but I’m glad you found me Officially Declared.
As the only Candidate Officially declared and who hasn’t suspended or endorsed I’m here for you. Actually have only 1 or 2 Contributions over the $50 Reportable mark, so you and yr spouse if your married can make it $5,000.00 , I think maybe even 10k , 5 for Primary and another 5 for General but you’d have to be quick.
http://www.codyjudy.us
As far as my employment , well no one’s paid my bills for 8 years and I haven’t taken Federal Food or Housing Aid though I’m qualified.
You go ahead and vote for your Billionaire Candidates if you think it’s right. Yes.. the Clinton Charity Foundation 2 Billion fortified with Foreign Influence just like you like..oh wait.. maybe your a Trumpster hoping the very rich will help the very poor. 😂
God knows you ain’t helping the Country making fun of me.
Contribution Limits
An individual may give a maximum of:
$2,700 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate’s campaign committee.2 Notice that the limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#how_much
Right here to Contribute to a Real Presidential Candidate. You make the Max and I’ll right the FEC Report. You’ll be famous!
http://codyjudy.us/information/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm
I’ve paid more attention to you guys than either Trump or Hillary, you ought to support my Campaign and how much BIPARTISAN attention you have got for free.. no 500,000 speaking fees
Does that mean that you’re not going to be at the convention next week?
If you are eligible for SNAP and don’t apply for it, you are a fool. There is no shame in accepting government assistance, as long as you don’t do it fraudulently.
That’s typical of you – casting aspersions on the Clinton Foundation, which is rated “A” by Charity Watch. Only 12% of the foundation’s income goes to pay for overhead, and its fundraising expenses are minimal, spending only 2 cents for every dollar raised. You might want to spend some of your ample free time by educating yourself.
http://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
Even if one agreed with you about Donnie and Hill, you are ignoring Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, either of whom are far more qualified than you and far more likely to win.
I expect real politicians to use their time more effectively. (And playing in comment sections in a venal sin for those who can afford to do so.)
Those who obsess over comment sections while living below the poverty line and ignoring their family’s needs, well, that’s beyond just stupid.
I’d settle for infamous. Cody, do you have a running mate yet? ‘Cause I’m totally available. I’m a natural born citizen and everything! But be forewarned: I wear this crab costume 24/7. No exceptions. Folks may think your ticket is a little, uh, eccentric. So you’d have to get used to being ridiculed.
Our host, Doctor Conspiracy, noted in the article:
“Birther attorney Mario Apuzzo, a frequent litigator on presidential eligibility questions, is representing Elliott before the Supreme Court”
That attorney of record on this petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Mario Apuzzo Esquire, has been reading this thread. You can see him implicitly admit it, and lie by saying that I “posted the same comment” here as there, at: http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/
Congratulations on your promotion to Obama operative.
So has he addressed the question of who in their right mind would hire him to represent them before the Supreme Court in an eligibility challenge, or, in corollary, who in their right mind would even let him pay to represent them?
Apuzzo has been accusing various people of being Obama operatives. It is an especially stupid thing to do for someone who so desperately wants to be taken seriously.
Thanks, but, as you know, it doesn’t pay well.
Apuzzo whines that no one responded (to the comment that you never made). For Apuzzo: brygenon is correct because Elliott never raised the two-citizen-parent fantasy, so there’s no way SCOTUS is suddenly going to take up that cause.
Regardless, SCOTUS will silently deny Apuzzo’s petition; I guarantee it. I also guarantee that Apuzzo will claim victory because SCOTUS didn’t expressly rule against him.
And I further guarantee that President Obama will continue to enjoy the office to which he was twice duly elected.
Don’t know that anyone asked Apuzzo that. I consider it a better question for his client, Carmon Elliott, who had not really come off as a crank until letting Apuzzo represent him.
On Apuzzo’s blog I did specifically ask whether, before Apuzzo got involved, Elliot had argued that a president’s parents had to be citizens. Apuzzo replied, but did not answer. Then he decided not to let me follow-up there.
Comments of 11 July 2016:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=6492614342246305327
Apuzzo at his own blog wrote:
“Warning” is a bit dramatic, Apuzzo; I took it as a commentary on Apuzzo’s desperate need for attention.
Yeah. I’m happy Apuzzo reads my blog, I just with he would comment,
Typical Apuzzo.
I don’t believe that anyone has mentioned this, but Cruz has waived his right to file a response to Mario’s petition.
No. 16-13
Title:
Carmon Elliott, Petitioner
v.
Ted Cruz
Docketed: June 30, 2016
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
Case Nos.: (29 MAP 2016)
Decision Date: March 31, 2016
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 28 2016 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2016)
Jul 14 2016 Waiver of right of respondent Ted Cruz to respond filed.
I wrote:
brygenon: Don’t know that anyone asked Apuzzo that. I consider it a better question for his client, Carmon Elliott, who had not really come off as a crank until letting Apuzzo represent him.
But neglected to quote the question:
Elliott v. Cruz has been distributed for the conference on 9/26/16. Cruz has not been asked to file a response. Chalk up another loss for Apuzzo.
No. 16-13
Title:
Carmon Elliott, Petitioner
v.
Ted Cruz
Docketed: June 30, 2016
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
Case Nos.: (29 MAP 2016)
Decision Date: March 31, 2016
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 28 2016 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2016)
Jul 14 2016 Waiver of right of respondent Ted Cruz to respond filed.
Jul 27 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.