On the Quora question site, someone asked “What is the IQ of a person still questioning whether Obama was born a US citizen?” Mensa member Sam Sewell came to mind, and Harvard PhD Jerome Corsi. I guess IQ isn’t everything.
Obama Conspiracy Theories closed to new articles on January 20, 2017, as as the very presidential Barack Obama left office, and was replaced by someone completely different. The open thread is a place to leave comments and continue the discussion. This thread will close, and be replaced by another in 4 weeks.
If you have not had an approved comment here before, your comment will first go into moderation for subsequent review and approval.
Doc. C -“A scholarly article has appeared in the Wake Forest Law Review on “On the Meaning of ‘Considered as Natural Born’”
Another article from same author.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2915556
A scathing editorial in the Washington Post about Arpaio.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/former-arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio-is-knocked-down-to-size/2017/04/07/dc51fb9c-1acc-11e7-855e-4824bbb5d748_story.html?utm_term=.e8f53a5d57ec
That’s not one to sneeze at. Doc, I think it’s Vol. 12 of those debates that has the references Vlahoplus uses.
Okay, Rep. Tucker’s mention of presidential eligibility is in Vol. 3, that Doc already provided a link to, at page 218–
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433081774055;view=1up;seq=696
Tucker’s talking about a kind of “progressive citizenship,” where a person can be a citizen for one purpose but not for another. I just don’t think the concept of citizenship in American law had evolved very far at that point.
And I see this is the same stuff available in the Annals of Congress.
Vlahoplus point about “considered as natural born” is interesting but I suspect it could used against people like Rubio and Jindal.
Take for example Swift’s statement on the laws of Connecticut.
“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Is he referring to naturalization at birth?
That’s how it is described in Wooddeson’s “Lectures on the Laws of England”
“The issue of an alien, born within the realm, are accounted natural subjects; in which respect, there is not any difference between our laws and those of France. In each country, birth confers the right of naturalization.”
Jerome Corsi is a disinformation agent.
You just figured that out? He has been doing it for 20 years.
No, I figured it out years ago just as soon as I saw the video of him interviewing the mailman, an Obama forgery witness, who was NOT from Chicago.
It seems that Alex Jones didn’t get the message because he is now one of Infowars reporters. Alex wonders why he’s losing millions.
That does look like the Clewiston mailman who helped us secure the stamp for the selective service form.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jaGIO0Y9Sc
Clever fools: Why a high IQ doesn’t mean you’re smart
http://lclane2.net/decision2.html
gorefan,
Yes, Swift refers to citizenship at birth. His is one of two such broader descriptive uses of the phrase discussed in footnote 25, both of which (interestingly) involve minority groups (national origin and religion). And Mario Apuzzo made the argument you suggest in a post here:
http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/birther-madness-2/ (posting of March 7, 2013 at 11:27 am).
Although there are such broader descriptive uses of the phrase, the prescriptive uses from the period are uniform. Whether in the royal license, the French letters patent, Hartley’s proposal or the First Congress’s proposals, “shall be,” “will be” or “to be” considered as natural born merely naturalized persons or granted limited rights of the natural born. One notable U.S. example is the first draft of H.R. 40. Seven of the nine Representatives appointed to the select committee that produced the bill were lawyers, and their draft bill provided that the foreign-born children “shall be considered as natural born citizens, on their coming to reside in the United States.” The phrase referred to persons who would receive citizenship only after their births. They could live their entire lives abroad without any obligations to the United States, owing allegiance to their native sovereigns, then upon coming to reside in the U.S. as an adult gain automatic citizenship. The phrase cannot be interpreted to mean citizenship at birth, and it is unlikely that the drafters intended such lifelong foreigners to become eligible to the presidency after residing in the United States for fourteen years.
A second notable U.S. example is Rep. White’s proposal that the children will be considered as natural born until age 22, when their citizenship would expire to avoid the inconvenience of dual nationality. White was a nationally renowned lawyer who trained at the University of Edinburgh as well as the Inner Temple and Gray’s Inn. He did not use the phrase to mean eligible to the presidency given that his proposed citizenship would expire before the children reached the 35 year minimum age for eligibility.
Unfortunately the most important parts of the legislative history were not widely reported, so it fell to the team preparing the Documentary History of the First Federal Congress to find and publish all of the relevant history, which the longer article cites.
P&E’s “reporting” that the district court denied ex-con Judy’s motion to reconsider (of the denial of the motion to reopen (his long since dead frivolous lawsuit)).
Judy hasn’t mentioned the denial on his blog, although he has whined about it at P&E.
That draft bit of legislation reminded me of an argument made by Rawle who argued that citizenship exists at birth, rather than being something attained at majority.
That appears towards the end of my article from 2013:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/rawles-therefore/
Today ex-con Judy posted/whined/bragged about he is now donating plasma to fund his further birther follies.
This blog has links to memoryholeblog.com, which is now flagged by Google as hosting malware.
Mario’s statement,
“If Swift believed that jus soli citizenship prevailed in Connecticut as a matter of nature and not as a matter of positive law, we would expect Swift to have used more affirmative language (e.g., such children are “natural born citizens”), given that he was addressing children actually born in Connecticut.”
ignores Swift’s early affirmative statement,
“THE people are considered as aliens, born in some foreign country, as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union, or natural born subjects, born within the state.”
Swift’s three categories are definitive even with his use of the term “considered as”. Aliens are born in some foreign country, natural born subjects are born within the state. The “children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects” means they are natural born.
IIRC, whenever an act granted limited rights or placed restrictions such limitations were delineated in the act. So in the 1790 Act children of citizens only became natural born citizens if the father had resided in the US. So they could have placed a restriction that such children were not eligible to be president.
In fact if they wanted to restrict such a child’s presidential eligibility why include “natural born” at all? The 1790 act describes adults who go through the naturalization process as “shall be considered as a citizen of the United States”. The existing children of a such naturalized citizen as “shall also be considered as citizens of the United States”. Those children’s US citizenship was restricted by them having to dwell in the US at time the father was naturalized and they had to be under the age of twenty-one. So why not use the “considered as natural born” for those two categories of naturalized citizens? Why the change in the language in the same act?
Isn’t the only distinction between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen eligibility to be president?
Given France’s “Reign of Terror” that makes the decision to remove “natural born” from the 1795 act seem logical.
Ex-con Judy sends a lovely welcome gift to SCOTUS’ newest member: an emergency application for a writ of mandamus.
Ex-con Judy continues to be butthurt that his dead frivolous suit remains dead. And if you are asking why ex-con Judy even thinks that an individual justice can grant him this relief, the answer is obvious enough: ex-con Judy is a moran.
He also includes a motion to recuse Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, ignoring the fact that no Supreme Court justice can be forced to recuse. Then he makes the nonsensical statement that an Act of Congress must be signed by a president to become law. He apparently never learned that a bill passed by Congress automatically becomes law if the president fails to sign or veto it within ten days (Sundays excepted).
Justice Sotomayor is responsible for the Tenth Circuit (which includes Utah), so Gorcush’s clerk will either reject it or ship it to Sotomayor.
Apparently selling steaks door-to-door isn’t very profitable nowadays.
I noticed that as well. (Ex-con Judy’s rationale, of course, is that Sotomayor can’t hear this case.) But a litigant can’t apply to an individual justice for a writ of mandamus. So I think it’ll be circulated to the full court — for denial.
I think it will be assigned to the proper justice for the circuit and denied. That is unless it is tossed because he didn’t pay the filing fee and it resembles a rotting dead fish more than a legal filing.
gorefan,
I agree with your reading of Swift. He uses “considered as” in its descriptive sense for all classes of persons you note. So his usage does not support Apuzzo’s claim.
The only distinction in the Constitution between natural born and naturalized citizens is presidential eligibility. However, there were significant differences under state law, such as waiting periods before naturalized citizens could vote. Members of the First Congress also disagreed pointedly over whether and how federal naturalization affected personal rights under state law (as opposed to merely granting federal rights).
There was a proposal that anyone naturalized under the Act’s general provision shall be considered as a natural born citizen. There was also a proposal to consider all alien minor children as natural born citizens upon the naturalization of their parents. The members of Congress who made those proposals surely did not think that such language would make those two categories of post-natally naturalized persons actually natural born and thus eligible to the presidency.
You are right to frame the question as “why not use the ‘considered as natural born’ for those two categories of naturalized citizens? Why the change in the language in the same act?” Some members of Congress did in fact propose to use the same language for those two categories, but the majority rejected these proposals.
So why did some members propose that the naturalized immigrants shall be considered as natural born citizens? I believe it was because they wanted to grant immigrants the broadest possible rights under state law, including rights to hold property. Why did the majority reject these proposals? There is no indication that the majority considered the proposals to be constitutionally nonsensical or absurd for considering persons as natural born after their births. I believe that the majority rejected the proposals because even then there was significant resistance to immigration and to broad rights for immigrants. The longer article that you linked to above provides some details on the debates and a citation to Prof. McManamon’s article on the original meaning of “natural born” that suggest that state law rights (including property rights) were critical to the debates and to the Act (see page 38 and footnote 164).
But that goes without saying. 😉
It would be hilarious if this turns into a rerun wherein it gets dumped because ex-con Judy still can’t follow the IFP rules.
When has Judy EVER followed the rules about anything? I thought he’d already said he wasn’t paying anything this time around because all he was doing was asking Gorsuch to overrule the filing fee. He’s so clueless he doesn’t know what he is doing.
I tried to post a comment about why Judy’s “new evidence,” even if true, is irrelevant to his lawsuit, but it didn’t make it through Rondeau’s moderation.
Birthers prefer to wallow in their own ignorance.
Yup: Rondeau almost never allows one of my comments through; ditto with Taitz.
On Facebook, I’ve been blocked by Carl Gallups … and ex-con Judy.
Someone named “Walter White” got one through the other day. She must be not be a Breaking Bad fan. I suspect Jesse Pinkman will make an appearance at some point.
I’m not surprised by a pop-culture psuedonym escaping Rondeau; I’m surprised Rondeau allowed a dissenting opinion to be published.
My comment was in support of “Walter White.” I thought of signing it as “Saul Goodman” but I thought that might be too obvious.
The gist of my comment was that “failure to state a claim” is not a mere technicality. It is what keeps frivolous lawsuits to a minimum.
Good old Rharon, plucky girl ????? gossip monger, never met a fact she couldn’t ignore. Stating a claim isn’t a picky little technicality, it is a requirement, and it has to be one that something can actually be done about.. So Judy would fail doubly on that one.
It may get tossed by the clerk because of Rule 22.
Rule 22. Applications to Individual Justices
1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall
be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the
Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to
grant the sought relief.
You mean he is a stool?
How very scatological of you.
http://www.graysonline.com/lot/0006-3002325/catering-and-restaurant/qty-of-4-brown-fabric-bar-stool-original-manufactured-by-moran
Sure?
Speaking of ex-con Judy, the P&E is “reporting” that he also filed an appeal to the 10th Cir. (in addition to wasting SCOTUS’ time).
How many articles is she going to milk out of Judy’s stupidity?
Ex-con Judy’s stupidity is an endless font of “material”; if only we could run cars off it.
Ex-con Judy’s need for attention is pathological; it would appear Rondeau’s desire to maintain a money-draining hobby that will never be taken seriously is somewhat similar.
Of course that is a cow that can supply almost unlimited milk.
Speaking of unlimited milk, Van Allen (Strunk’s partner in idiocy) has filed a few more birther lawsuits (seeking to remove President Obama’s judicial nominees).
Yes, it is 2017 and there are still birthers filing birther lawsuits.
She is down to pimping Judy since her primary squeeze and source of outrage and moral anguish Fitzfundfilcher seems to have dropped off the face of the earth and quit sending her voluminous mash notes, and the one she chose to replace him with doesn’t seem to be providing her with much material, that and originality just never seemed to be her long suits.
I have split the Polls category into two separate categories, Polls and Reader Polls.
Good find. That would give the Clerk the perfect reason to bounce it.
Like I said, no matter how charitably one reads ex-con Judy’s drivel, he’s asking for something that no individual justice can grant.
Ex-con Judy’s application has yet to appear on SCOTUS’ docket; I suspect it is only a matter of time before he starts whining on his blog about the mean ole clerks bouncing his waste of paper.
Bob – OT for the OT thread.
Arpaio is requesting a jury trial. Rule 42 states “A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides.”
Why would he not be eligible for a jury trail instead of bench trial? Is there a federal law that prevents his right to a jury trial?
gorefan,
Apparently no right in the case of contempt with a six month or lower sentence.
https://www.law360.com/articles/873598/feds-say-sheriff-joe-s-contempt-charge-doesn-t-warrant-jury
JohnV
Thanks John – so it is not serious enough to allow for a jury trial.
BTW, I’m working my way through your longer article. Are you familiar with Jay’s letter where he wanted to prohibit naturalized citizens from being member of Congress?
gorefan,
No — do you have a link?
As I read it again I may be conflating Blackstone’s statement on naturalized citizens not being in parliament with Jay’s letter about foreigners not being elected to an office of the United States. Maybe I was struck by the similarity or that the only elected positions in the US are members of Congress and the Presidency.
Anyway here it is:
13th May 1798
Dear Sir
It is said that the Naturalization Act is to be revised and amended. Permit me to suggest an idea which I have for many years deemed important.
We doubtless may grant to a foreigner just such a portion of our rights and privileges as we may think proper. In my opinion it would be wise to declare explicitly that the right and privilege of being elected or appointed to or of holding and exercising any office or place of trust or power under the United States or under any of them shall not hereafter be granted to any foreigner but that the president of the United States with the consent of the Senate be nevertheless at liberty to appoint a foreigner to a military office.
I am dear sir
Your most obedient servant
John Jay
https://books.google.com/books?pg=PA407&dq=It+is+said+that+the+Naturalization+Act+is+to+be+revised+and+amended.&ei=lMzhTIKQCJKosAOTleCwCw&ct=result&sqi=2&id=p2UFAAAAQAAJ&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Arpaio legal defense fund: Tax exempt?
http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/2017/04/breaking-arpaio-finds-tax-exempt.html?m=1
Cody is trying to use 22(3) as a work-around
He claims they are biased so it cannot go to them, thus Gorsuch is the next in line. As I read the rule, it is not his choice to decide if the justice is available, but when have the rules ever been a barrier to Cody.
The best he will get is that they give the application to Sotomayor, who will then deny it.
Cody’s NOA has triggered an automatic docketing on the 10th Circuit docket, as of last Friday. The only docket entry is the record and a standard letter to the Appellant.
http://shareblue.com/gop-congressman-compares-concerns-about-trump-taxes-russia-connections-to-birther-conspiracies/
Except ex-con Judy is applying for relief that no individual justice can grant. Ex-con Judy can petition Gorsuch, Roberts, or John Jay, and none of them have the power to give him what he wants.
Judy’s latest POS was delivered to SCOTUS a week ago but it hasn’t been docketed, which leads me to believe that Rule 22(1) has been invoked.
Judy’s latest fantasy involves Obama being banished because of his “forged birth certificate.”
I agree that the clerk likely bounced ex-con Judy’s papers; I’m waiting for the usual whinefest. But remember: ex-con Judy sold a month’s worth of plasma to pay off his postage!
Ex-con Judy’s outlandish banishment fantasy is pretty typical in the category of “stupid things that ex-con Judy believes that will never happen.”
It sounds very much to me like his mental health, always questionable at the best of times, has started to really deteriorate as a result of his life of utter, total, and constant fail, and he is moving in to a world of total delusion.
I was prompted by some nonsense on YouTube to re-examine the Lucas Smith Obama Kenyan birth certificate (POSFKBC).
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/194663670-Barack-Obama-birth-certificate-from-Coast-Province-General-Hospital-Mombasa-Kenya-1961_Page_1_Image_0001.jpg
I made two observations. First, the footprint on the form seems to be printed at a very much lower resolution than the rest of the form. The form itself is exceedingly sharp, while the footprint shows no ridges at all, but looks rather grainy.
I had always assumed that the Smith certificate was filled out with a real typewriter because that would give a more authentic-looking result, but upon examination, I had some question as to whether I was correct, and in my search for computer typewriter fonts, I found a font named “L. C. Smith Typewriter.” It’s not what was used on the form, but the coincidence made me go hmmm. I no longer suspect it could be computer generated type because not all examples of a letter are identical
Zullo to be on Gallups show today at 5:00 p.m. EDT. Will be discussing birth certificate investigation and Montgomery stuff.
http://www.1330weby.com
Birther Judge Loses Ethics Appeal
Hot off the presses here in San Diego:
April 21, 2017
Panel concludes San Diego Judge Gary Kreep violated judicial ethics rules
San Diego Superior Court Judge Gary Kreep violated judicial ethics rules when he made remarks to lawyers and litigants about their appearance and ethnicity in his first years on the bench, a special panel of judges concluded in a report released Friday.
Still not docketed as of five minutes ago.
Judy has never grasped the fact that SCOTUS has no mechanism for reopening a closed case. You get to file a petition and if that is denied you get to file a motion for reconsideration. That’s it.
Yesterday he posted on his blog that “all Acts must be signed by a Constitutionally Qualified President.” I commented that a law passed by Congress does not have to be signed by the president to become law. A president can take no action on legislation and it automatically becomes law after ten days (Sundays excluded), or he can veto legislation and if the veto is overridden the legislation becomes law without his signature.
He of course still believes that there is some magic reset button that can undo everything that President Obama did while in office
As of now my comment has not made it through his moderation.
Brian Reilly and his lawyer should be very interested in the 2:30 to 3:00 P.M. segment.
Missed the first 40 minutes.
What was the part about the Arpaio charged under 401 but everyone else charged under 402?
L. C. Smith was a shotgun manufacturer of considerable repute. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were involved in other manufacturing enterprises. Of course, I’m not surprised at L.D. Smith being involved in any other enterprises consistent with his reputation either.
Typewriters for one.
http://typewriterdatabase.com/smithcorona.143.typewriter-serial-number-database
They eventually mated with Corona typewriters and became SmithCorona.
The short answer is that it is Zullo, and he got just about everything wrong.
There are two contempt statutes, section 401 and 402; 401 covers contempt while 402 covers a contemptuous act that is also a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice). Back in December, the judge ruled every contemptuous act that was also a crime was barred by the statute of limitations. Which had the effect of releasing the other three defendants, and narrowing the case against Arpaio.
Arpaio’s new lawyer recently rehashed these arguments, and the judge again rejected them. Contrary to Zullo’s implications, Arpaio did not raise this issue in the 9th. Rather, Arpaio recently filed a writ, and the 9th called for a response. And Zullo and Gallups shoveled it on with Taitz-ian excitement, calling it a big deal (when in fact it is rather routine).
To summarize: same smoke, different mirrors.
I thought the writ was for a jury trial and nothing about statute of limitations?
I take it the BC stuff was a rehash of December 15th and a waiting for Congress or someone like them.
Yeah, I reckon they’re a lot more well known for the typewriters! But when I was a kid, an L. C. Smith shotgun was a real prize.
Exactly. Arpaio’s new lawyer did recently rehash (and lose again) on the statute of limitations, but that was in the district court.
That and so much more! Gallups repeatedly dared the “Obots” to prove their case — not on the internet (or AM radio?) but in a court of law! Gallups repeatedly “suggested” that … someone sue … somone (Zullo?) for … something (tortious interference with reality?).
And then Gallups tied a big bow on it all by saying that Arpaio said his criminal trial was about the birth certificate — and therefore it must be true! Montgomery was investigating the birth certificate! Snow outed Montgomery! Snow referred Arpaio for criminal charges as punishment! JUST YOU WAIT TO SEE HOW IT ALL UNFOLDS.
Nothing, like we’ve heard before.
And, in our birther news, the “Honorable” Gary Kreep found in violation of ethical rules.
Okay if I understand this correctly. Arpaio was charged under 401 for the criminal contempt of not following the courts original orders. The other clowns (Sheridan, Bailey and Iafrate) were charged with criminal contempt for the 60 hard drive issue and that was both contempt and also a violation of criminal law (obstruction). So they got off because the one year statute of limitations had expired.
Was Arpaio originally charged under 402 for the hard drive issue?
And so far they haven’t filed anything new with the ninth circuit about statute of limitations and it wouldn’t be an emergency anyway.
I don’t recall, but if he was, it was tossed back in December. And no one of Arpaio’s filings in the 9th addressed the statute of limitations.
Arpaio’s new attorneys want Jeff Session to testify. I can’t imagine what Sessions could say that would be relevant.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/04/13/former-sheriff-joe-arpaio-wants-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-testify-witness-contempt-trial/100406394/
Nobody seems to know who “Agent Carey Crocker” is. There is an attorney in Tucson named Carey Ann Crocker, but the State Bar lists her status as “inactive.”
If the Birthers magic reset button actually existed, one would think that Trump and Congress would be tripping over themselves to prosecute Obama and trigger the reset. It would have been the easier way to repeal Obamacare/ACA than the debacle the ended up with.
Judy hasn’t figured out that Trump and the Republican Congress aren’t doing that precisely because the know that there is no magic reset button. But then figuring out things isn’t Judy’s strong point.
The inference is that Arpaio expects Sessions to testify that Arpaio acted in conformity in how Sessions (as AG) would want him to perform. Which is great and all, but it has nothing to do with the charges.
The real answer is that Arpaio is trying to gin up a conflict of interest (the DOJ can’t prosecute and testify), to create further delay.
Yes, it looks like the strategy of Arpaio’s new attorneys is to delay, delay, delay. They will file more motions, which will be denied, and then they will appeal.
I will have to check the podcast when they get around to posting it. Brian Reilly seems to have gotten under Zullo’s skin.
FYI, according to the P&E:
Gallups, April 21, 2017: “Several government officials contacted Mike Zullo, and we can’t promise you what’s going to happen from it…”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/04/21/birth-certificate-investigator-information-confidential-informant-accurate/
According to PPSimmons:
Gallups, May, 14, 2013: “We now have VIPs contacting the CCP and Zullo desiring meetings to examine the evidence in this criminal case. We now have several VIPs vowing to move this forward to a prosecution level.”
http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/05/exclusive-mike-zullo-sounds-off.html
My prediction:
Gallups sometime in the distant future: “I talked to Zullo today and he says that he is being contacted by official VIPs who can move this forward.”
Gallups and Zullo yesterday were making a big deal about the federal officials being the ones who initiated contact; they came to him, and not vice versa.
I suspect Zullo has received a very special invitation to Arpaio’s upcoming trial. A compelling one, even. 😉
Just posted: Full Interview – “FORMER INVESTIGATOR” Mike Zullo on Freedom Friday (April 21-17) with Carl Gallups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwPn1WVXIc
Brian Reilly: This particular clip may be of particular interest to you (Zullo starts talking around the 2:30 mark): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n_zUVN-IBI
Zullo said this at 10:30
“And in the first two press conferences we still had an expert, we had Reed Hayes, a document examiner, an expert, certified, document examiner, court recognized expert, supply us information and a report then. Claiming the document was fabricated piecemeal. The same Reed Hayes that we later used in December when we discovered more evidence.”
Reed Hayes was not involved in the first two press conferences. Vindication creep
Alternative facts?
Yeah. Hayes’ website says Zullo first contacted him in November, 2012
Could be, although as far as I can tell the prosecution hasn’t filed a witness list.
And Gallups was guffawing about the fake news coverage of Zullo’s BS in the MSM. 😆
Wow major claim saying Reilly was an internet stalker claiming Reilly was under investigation for sexual harassment? It’s funny how Zullo never made all these claims before.
8 weeks in an organization? Didn’t birthers give Tim Adams an air of authority for his equally short stint?
Yes, Reilly has really gotten to Zullo. That was close to slander if not true. Brian made an interesting comment at Rondeau’s blog last week. He asked what had happened to all the donations they made to the CCP. I wonder if that was what set Zullo off?
Yeah, to hear the Birthers tell it you would have thought he ran all the elections in Hawaii and had access to the vital records to boot.
Zullo is also still trying to push the fake Johanna A’nee birth certificate as if it represents a real woman. He said in his interview basically, “So what if it’s fake, too? Sad.
I see Bob Laity is still rambling on about his theory about treason and Obama. Didn’t NBC destroy his claim about what a time of war constituted with the case Bobby was uses as the basis of his claims?
Yabut Laity claims some JAG told him he was right. Who are we to argue with some imagined JAG’s opinion?
Yes, I think you are referring to this article:
https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/educating-the-confused-robert-laity-and/
The latest on CRJ:
1. He is whining that his latest plea for financial support has netted him just one contribution for $100. He can’t understand why people aren’t digging down deep to support his lost cause (which still hasn’t been docket by SCOTUS, incidentally).
2. For some reason he thinks that it is a big deal that he filed a notice of appearance as a pro se plaintiff with the Tenth Circuit. He told Sharon Rondeau, “The significance of this Appearance of Counsel paper is it in fact acts as Service upon the Defendants Officially in the Tenth Circuit. For all intensive [sic] purposes if Obama doesn’t respond, they should hold him in Default.”
Of course Obama has no obligation to respond to CRJ’s POS, and no court can grant a default in a closed case. For all intensive purposes, of course.
I’m amazed that there are even enough delusional fools out there with money to send CRJ even $5. I didn’t think there were that many people who even paid attention to him outside of OCT and Fogbow.
I seriously doubt if CRJ even knows what he filed, he certainly doesn’t understand it, that much is obvious. I do think they need to revoke his IFP at this point as this has moved in to abuse.
I posted a very brief comment at P&E noting that Obama isn’t required to respond to Judy’s appeal and that a default judgment cannot be granted in a closed case. It remains to be seen if it will get through Rondeau’s moderation.
I didn’t bother to point out that CRJ never filed an adequate Affidavit of Service in the underlying case. Since Obama never had to appear in the underlying case, any fool should be able to understand that he has no need to respond to an appeal. But then Judy isn’t your run of the mill fool.
Judy has an infinite supply of stupidity.
You’re giving the fool way more credit than he deserves. He has NO idea what he is doing. At this point he’s just throwing paper and temper tantrums. He’s never yet figured out service, so why should any of the rest of it be different?
What I meant is that he is much more foolish than the run of the mill fool.
He filed the Appearance of Counsel because the Tenth Circuit told him that he had to.
His brief, which should be a hoot, is due on 6/5/17. Once again he will fail to address the legal issues which mandated that his lawsuit be dismissed.
They have nothing to revoke yet, because, according to a letter the court sent to him yesterday, IFP is not automatic so he needs to apply or pay the fee. This is a new appeal so the previous one does not apply.
Looks like they are saying that the district court’s decision on IFP does not bind them. That in opposition to Cody’s whining about courts honoring the other IFP decisions.
One of Judy’s many blunders on his 2015 case was that he assumed he had IFP status in the appellate courts because it was granted in the lower court.
It’s kind of fun bashing Judy here now that he can’t post his word salads in reply. He bans anyone on his blog or Twitter who tries to educate him. Of course Rondeau moderates too.
Ricky, you are quite right, he is a fool’s fool. I, too, can’t wait to see his brief, assuming he ever gets around to actually filing one, and like you I’m betting it will have nothing do with whatever he thinks he is appealing, probably a rehash of other long dead whines if he runs true to form. I doubt if it will ever get to that point, if he has to re-apply for IFP, I’m betting he’ll blow that like he did the last time. Following rules, or making sense, aren’t in his repertoire apparently. If he’s runnign true to form it’ll get bounced for failure to pay.
The findings of facts in Kreep’s judicial misconduct hearing are in, and two (of the many violations) are birther related: (1) Kreep advocated against President Obama’s re-election; and (2) represented Liberi (in the birther civil war) after he had assumed the bench.
I’m going to add this to the Resources menu page:
The Pretty Darn Exhaustive Obama Nickname List
http://brainshavings.com/obama-nicknames/
And the Tenth Circuit is aware of the fact that Judy was denied IFP status by SCOTUS, The Tenth Circuit was advised on 6/22/15 that Judy had been denied IFP and on 11/2/15 the Tenth Circuit was advised that his motion for reconsideration had been denied. So I suspect that his new request for IFP will be scrutinized closely.
If Judy is reduced to selling his plasma to raise money for postage he probably is eligible for IFP if only income and assets are considered. But even if he follows the rules I suspect that the Tenth Circuit will deny him IFP on the basis that his appeal is frivolous, particularly since the Tenth Circuit previously ruled that his underlying lawsuit is frivolous.
In Judy’s latest screed he claims that women weren’t U.S. citizens until the 19th Amendment was passed.
This is from someone who claims to be an expert on Minor v. Happersett.
He refused to follow the filing rules at SCOTUS, which I still find interesting and why he won’t release his app, so I see no reason to expect him to get with the program at this late a date. He will have a snit of righteous indignation that they didn’t just automatically grant it since it had already been granted before.
While he may have read Minor, which I honestly disbelieve, I doubt seriously he understood more than every 10th word, his reading comprehension is maybe third grade level at best on a good day, and he hasn’t had any of those in memory.
It’s clear by now that SCOTUS is not going to docket Judy’s petition for mandamus.
I don’t know if could be considered a reading comprehension issue or more a willful (possibly exasperated by other issues) ignoring of anything that does not suit his fancy at that moment. It is all about Cody and he wants at any giving moment. Rulings, the filing rules, or even what other commenters say is unimportant so he only comprehends what is useful for him at that moment in time, according to the way he thinks things should be. Other people and their ideas or concerns do not factor into his thinking.
He was an expert on one line in Minor that told him what he wanted at the moment. He did not need to know the whole ruling because it had no use for what he wanted right then. Thus, he can make a claim that is the opposite of Minor, because the case does not help him in his quest to tell the world the girls have cooties.
IIRC, we had an earlier discussion on this blog that one motivation for the Birthers was that they did not see themselves reflected in Obama. He was different (color, name, upbringing, intellectual, etc.) than the Birthers and others Obama haters so they automatically disliked him.
Cody, Orly, and others share the same self-centeredness, fact avoidance and lack of empathy as the current President. No wonder they love him. They found somebody who shares their values, or lack thereof. He is a mirror for them. Too bad the same “values” they cherish means that Trump would drop them in a heartbeat if it suited his needs, which are always more important than anybody else’s needs.
In this P&E “interview”, ex-con Judy concedes it hasn’t yet been filed, but he “explains” why. And ex-con Judy is happy that the 10th noted its receiving a courtesy copy; it’ll gather dust, and do nothing more.
—
Northland, I agree with your whole post.
Regarding this particular paragraph, I think this captures my own sense of the great divide in this country. For me personally, when Obama ran for President, I remember feeling that he reflected me and my family and all of Chicagoland (at its best). People all around me were excited/joyful about his candidacy. And when the RWNJs attacked him based on his personal attributes, it felt like they were personally attacking each one of us based on our personal attributes. It felt like much of the country hated all of us. Birtherism picked up on this and created/perpetuated hateful myths about Obama, and left me feeling there was no limit to the hateful myths they would create/perpetuate about me and mine and all of us.
That is curious, because on his blog he posted a receipt for whatever he sent to SCOTUS. It was sent via Express Mail on April 12 and signed for by I. Bennett at SCOTUS on April 13. Unless you mean “not docketed” rather than “not filed.”
Whatever it is, as you noted he filed a courtesy copy with the Tenth Circuit, so I’ll take a look on PACER and see what it is.
Judy did indeed file a petition for mandamus (although on the first page he misspelled it “mandumus,” perhaps a Freudian slip for “man, I’m a dumbass”) which was received by SCOTUS on April 13. Of course it contains the usual Judy word salad about the MCSO, Minor v. Happersett, etc., but not a single word which addresses the reasons why his lawsuit was dismissed.
He also accuses Judge Stewart of running a “Court of Corruption,” which is sure to endear him to SCOTUS and the Tenth Circuit.
I was having a bit of a back-and-forth with a birther on Quora the other day and he informed me, as a means of establishing his superior credibility, that he had “written Certiorari to the US supreme court.” I asked if he’d written letters to Santa Claus, too. I looked his case up. He’d complained in his lower court appeal of “ineffective counsel,” so he decided to represent himself before the Supreme Court. Didn’t work so good.
In other words, as usual, CRJ, the convicted felon liar terrorist LIED. And in other breaking news, water is wet.
Regardless of whether ex-con Judy actually did send papers to SCOTUS, only SCOTUS can file them. Since they don’t appear on any docket, it appears they were never filed in SCOTUS. In fact, it would appear a clerk has bounced them.
In contrast, the 10th Circuit “received” ex-con Judy’s petition. Meaning the 10th Circuit acknowledges receiving it. But it was not actually filed, so it won’t be considered by anyone.
For some reason ex-con Judy thinks this a big deal. No one but no one else is going to care. Ex-con Judy just likes to manufacture drama, to give himself something to whine about later.
It gives Rondeau something to write write silly articles about too.
Exactly: Ex-con Judy’s latest brain fart about the 19th Amendment is somehow newsworthy to Rondeau.
It’s probably news to her that women can vote now and are indeed citizens, something she is probably not comfortable with.
Hey all! Just popping in to say hi.
Well, I took a look around the old stomping grounds, only to find a huge crater where BR used to be. That’s pretty gratifying. I see a couple of sites still active-ish. Mike Volin seems to have taken in the last two active posters from BR. Rondeau’s site is looking pretty sad. I mean, you know you’ve smashed into the ground several hundred feet below rock bottom, when you’ve taken to pimp out Cody Judy’s drivel on a near daily basis.
Howdy Andrew. Good to hear from you. Yeah, Sharon is pumping out drivel even by her low standards. She pumps out at least an article or two for every piece of worthless paper that Judy files. A nothing appearance by Zullo on FF was good for about four posts.
Fortunately, we may have avoided another government shutdown and have been spared the tear jerking about how a “neighbor” might miss those Social Security Disability checks. It would all be Obama’s fault of course.
HAWAIIAN OFFICIAL DROPS A BOMBSHELL UNDER OATH CONCERNING OBAMA’s ‘BIRTH CERTIFICATE’ …
https://conservativepost.com/hawaiian-official-drops-a-bombshell-under-oath-concerning-obamas-birth-certificate/
BREAKING Hawaii Official Drops Bombshell About Obama’s “Birth Certificate” – News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tY-3UM-9YE&feature=share
Old news from WND last January.
Key point: No one in the Hawaii Elections division has access to Hawaiian birth records.
Nancy is still hopelessly off her meds I see.
Adams spoke about the affidavit on Reality Check Radio back on March 31, 2011. He admitted it was written by an attorney representing WND. This is indeed very old news.
My understanding was that Adams was a TEMPORARY employee doing scut work in the office so the real employees could get something done. Either was, hardly an official. Very old boring not news.
Adams said he worked as a senior elections clerk on a one year contract during the 2008 election cycle in Hawaii. A transcript of the interview is on my blog. https://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/rc-radio-march-31-timothy-adams/
When I asked him the exact dates he said it was something like May through September. I had never noticed that discrepancy until I checked just now.
I read a little more to refresh my memory. Adams said he left voluntarily and was asked to come back. He didn’t give many specifics. He said documents were being mishandled and the work environment got worse and worse. He also said school was starting.
Also just checking in.
The parking page on birtherreport.com is gratifying, even though it’s been dead more than 6 months and walking dead for longer than that.
Anyway, I just wanna say.
The hell with Birther Report.
And the hell with WND, too.
There. That felt good.
I knew that Eisenhower didn’t have a birth certificate until one was late filed for him in 1952. What I didn’t know until now is that at least someone thinks it’s fraudulent.
http://www.whale.to/b/eisenhower1.html
And GHW Bush was also born in Germany.
http://www.whale.to/b/april_2007_idaho.html
Rondeau is definitely the main birther cheerleader these days. Some talking head will crack a birther joke and she’ll write an article about it that rehashs the entire birther saga. The same with some random tweet. The real “story,” of course, is Rondeau’s obsession and excess of free time. Now that Birther Report is dead, her comments section is the few remaining birthers’ favorite haunt.
Taitz will occasionally remind everyone about her beliefs regarding Obama’s social security number, and then demand people contact officials. But this has been Taitz’s only tune since she stopped filing birther lawsuits.
Lucas Smith briefly resurfaced when Malik tweeted that fake certificate.
Paige showed up at RC’s site to remind people that he still has a pending lawsuit … against Cruz. Laity has one as well. But these birther stalking horses will eventually be put out to pasture.
Now I see the distinction you are making.
I agree that a clerk has bounced them. Otherwise they would be showing up by now.
As a legal document, Adams’ affidavit is worthless because nearly everything in it is hearsay. He claims to have been told certain things by anonymous “senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division,” none of which would be admissible in court. He has no personal knowledge of anything related to Obama’s birth certificate.
It’s easy to swear under oath to anonymous hearsay because it is impossible to disprove, so there is no downside except that people like RC made him look ridiculous. Adams did get his ten minutes of fame out of it.
And there is no downside for WND writing it for him since they never intended it to be used in actual legal proceedings. The birthers any other right-wingers were the intended audience and they responded as WND hoped. Smoke machines require more fluid to continue working. Adams was the fluid.
Ex-con Judy’s motion of IFP status filed in the 10th.
Why ex-con Judy would upload this IFP application but not the one the he had previously sent to SCOTUS seems fairly obvious: it easier for ex-con Judy to blame SCOTUS for denying that IFP application than for ex-con Judy to admit that he made mistakes on that application.
My understanding was May June and possibly July. He never lasted past August from what I remember during the interview and his complaining on myspace.
He is 51 years old and he is barely making the equivalent of the minimum wage, with no benefits. Of course, I don’t know how many hours a day he actually spends working. He says that he pays $265/month for the meat he sells, but he grosses $1200/month. That’s a pretty steep markup.
And of course this entire thing is an exercise in futility, except to the extent that Sharon is paying attention to him.
Yes, in that respect it was similar to Zullo’s worthless affidavit that was filed in one or two cases. I was trying to recall if anyone ever tried to file Tim Adam’s worthless affidavit.
I think Rharon is about the only one really paying attention to him anymore, the rest of us just laugh at him and call him on his lies. And being paid attention to is about like being farted at by my cat, of no consequence, unless you’re real close.
OK, I’m sure you all were just dying to find out if I’d make it back to Australia from my sojourn to the good ol’ USA (and Canada).
Well yes I did, and I survived without getting into one single argument over Obama or Trump anywhere. I am amazed at my own forbearance.
In Chicago, we met a lovely lady, originally from India, while sitting in the Ghirardelli Chocolate shop. She was there with her daughters and a friend and insisted that we take the window seats so we could look at the view down the river. She was involved in organizing the local women’s march a while back. She also advised us not to look too far around the corner, to avoid the embarassing building that was there. We had just gotten off the Architectural Tour River Cruise where the only comment the guide could make about that particular building was that the signage was, in general, against planning rules and ‘big money must have changed hands to get that one past’ (every other significant building he related the architect, year, and often an anecdote about it). Something tells me that Chicagoans are not happy with their Trump Tower. Neither, apparently, are Vancouverites.
In D.C. the various Smithsonian Gift Shops and the Memorial gift shops were still selling Obama memorabilia. Trump stuff was actually quite hard to find. I actually didn’t care.
In Tucson, the most conservative folks I talked to laughed at the idea of a wall. “Its been tried since Clinton – it can’t be done – its insane. G.W. tried a physical wall and found out it couldn’t work, he tried a ‘virtual wall’ and found out it couldn’t work.” Of course, my Mexican friends just rolled their eyes.
The only place I ‘almost’ got into trouble was in Deadwood South Dakota. There was a souvenir shop there with a t-shirt that the missus was interested in, until I pointed out the approximately 3 dozen MAGA caps lining the window (alternating orange and camouflage). She said “just ignore it while I try on the shirt” and I said “yeah, but I’ll have to check that they are made in USA, and then I’m likely to get in an argument about how buying hats from China to put jingoistic propaganda on Makes America Great Again; and then get them to explain what the heck they mean by ‘again’, and then… She took the hint and continued walking down the street – thankfully.
However, I am disappointed that I didn’t find an Obama Birth Certificate mug anywhere.
Rick Hyatt got his hands on a computer at whatever institution he is living in and posted some of his hallucinations at P&E. My favorite is his claim that the Secret Service got possession of his birth certificate and Barry Soetoro’s birth certificate, both of which show Markus Wolf to be the father. The birth certificates were then placed in a lock box and taken to Normandy where George H.W. Bush and Dick Cheney buried it in an old WWII bunker and it was then covered in concrete. Oh, and JFK and MLK were assassinated by China.
That is the sort of material that makes it through Rondeau’s moderation.
Keith: “Something tells me that Chicagoans are not happy with their Trump Tower.”
—-
Nice use of understatement. More recently, we’ve found good use for it — it provides a handy focal point for marches/demonstrations.
FYI, I used to work right next to the site (in the IBM building on N. Wabash) when the Chicago Sun-Times building was there. It was nice to walk across the street by the Sun Times with a brown bag lunch — it had a little park area and one could take a nice walk along the river. And then, it was replaced with this monstrosity.
Time lapse video (IBM building on the left). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVVATAAmkRE
From another angle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnEGFHRW3js
Makes nice fanfic, if you aren’t too choosy.
I think it is hilarious that she bothers to post a comment policy. Does she still have the rule that you cannot refer to Barack Obama as President? I know at one time that was not allowed.
Another commenter named JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS posts the same obviously copy and pasted crap over and over and Sharon always lets it through.
From P&E’s 2010 Reminder about our submission policy:
Sophisticated phishing scheme through Google DOCs.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/3/15534768/google-docs-phishing-attack-share-this-document-with-you-spam
I have a gmail account, but I rarely use it and I didn’t receive the phising email.
Judy has posted his appeal brief on Scribd. There is nothing new or original to see, and to no one’s surprise he once again has utterly failed to address the reasons that his lawsuit was dismissed in the first place. He still doesn’t grasp the fact that even if he properly served the defendants, the Court cannot grant him a default judgment because he failed to state a claim.
The 10th Circuit hasn’t yet ruled on his IFP application.
https://www.scribd.com/document/347467891/Judy-v-Obama-et-al-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-CRJ-BRIEF-Tenth-Circuit-2017#from_embed
😆 There is a mistake in the very first sentence. Also, you will be glad to know that Judy is the only candidate who never conceded.
And Rondeau has beeninadvertently serializing ex-con Judy’s brief.
Writing and I have not always had a close relationship, but that first sentence is a grammatical nightmare.
For law nerds: Supreme Court Haiku site:
https://twitter.com/SupremeHaiku