According to it’s author Jerry Collette, the second Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge will be filed in Kentucky tomorrow. Collette created a "kit” allowing anyone to assemble their own ballot challenge to Barack Obama, complete with complaint templates and strategy. The theory behind the DIY kit is that notwithstanding well over 100 birther losses in court, there could be one receptive judge somewhere. I might characterize such a judge using the words of Don Rosebrock in describing his fictional judge Quinn, “batshit crazy.”
Collette’s own attempt in Florida met a roadblock when a judge in Collette’s own county decided the case had to be filed elsewhere. My understanding is that the transfer to the State Capitol is a barrier to him pursuing the case although I don’t know that a final decision has been made.
Tomorrow’s filing will be in Franklin, Kentucky, Circuit Court, 28th Judicial District. Reports say the plaintiff is Todd House, M.D. of Louisville, KY, a write-in candidate for President (his name won’t actually appear on the ballot, although he is registered and may receive votes).
The latest incarnation of the model complaint alleges Obama is not eligible for the reasons:
- That he was foreign born;
- No matter where he was born, he is not a natural born citizen, because he was born of foreign paternity; and
- He became a citizen of Indonesia, and never properly reinstated his U.S. citizenship.
One and three are allegations of fact, which aren’t true, and the other is a conclusion of law that has been rejected by 5 courts of original jurisdiction, 2 courts of appeal and 2 state secretaries of state. Beyond the standard birther stuff, this case invokes a specific Kentucky candidate challenge statute KRS 118.176 Challenging Good Faith of a Candidate.
The Kentucky statute allows a challenge to a candidate for general election to be made by any voter any time before the regular election, and guarantees an expedited hearing by the court; however, Barack Obama is not yet the nominee of the Democratic Party and so technically he’s not legally a candidate in the regular election in Kentucky (this argument prevailed in Florida in the Voeltz case). He will be, though, so the timing problem can be remedied. Another quirk in the statute (pointed out by a commenter here) is where the suit should be brought:
The bona fides of any candidate seeking nomination or election in a primary or in a special or regular election may be questioned by any qualified voter entitled to vote for the candidate or by an opposing candidate by summary proceedings consisting of a motion before the Circuit Court of the judicial circuit in which the candidate whose bona fides is questioned resides.
I don’t believe Barack Obama resides in Franklin County, Kentucky. The suit also references KRS 452.460 on jurisdiction, which I suppose works for the Kentucky defendants, but not for the candidate challenge statute.
Notwithstanding the objections to bringing the suit, the burden of proof is on the challenger, and to this non-gifted legal mind, it doesn’t look like the plaintiffs get discovery. Since birthers have no evidence, and their parentage theory has significant precedent against it, I don’t see how this is going anywhere. I think this could be something of a repeat of the Georgia challenge where the birthers presented their evidence without objection and still lost.
The stock replies to cases like this are that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the suit that the case is not ripe, and that the complaint is a political question reserved to the Congress and not the Judiciary. Standing doesn’t seem to be an issue the way the Kentucky statute is written, but it is questionable if that statute applies to the Presidential election when the candidate is not a resident of Kentucky. If the Kentucky statute is deemed inapplicable, the Plaintiff’s position as a write-in candidate only goes so far to establish standing.
Update:
In the Barnett, Judge Carter suggested that it might be possible that a minor party candidate with no chance of getting elected might still claim a specific injury. A write-in candidate’s injury is even more tenuous and hypothetical, but still the possibility exists that a judge might accept an argument of injury; however, there is more to standing than injury. The plaintiffs must show that the defendant caused the injury and that the court can redress the injury. It is that last element, redressability, that appears to be lacking in this case. I do not think a Kentucky court will conclude that it has the authority to intervene in a federal election insofar as who is eligible to run. Recall that prior state laws attempting to impose term limits for Congress were ruled unconstitutional. Judge Carter felt that way, dismissing Barnett.
Defendants (in this case Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, the Kentucky Secretary of State and the State Board of Elections) may also argue that this is a federal question and remove the case to federal court, and federal judges so far have concluded that presidential candidate challenges are not under the jurisdiction of the judiciary before the election results are certified by Congress, if at all.
Jerry Collette and Sam Sewell are promoting a new ballot challenge, this time in Kentucky. According to a news release posted at ORYR:
“Todd House, M.D. of Louisville, KY, a candidate for President of the United States, has filed an action in Kentucky Circuit Court challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for the office of the President and therefore the presence of his name on the ballot in Kentucky.
“Furthermore, our plaintiff, Todd House, is also registered with the Kentucky Secretary of State as a write in candidate for President. Consequently, he has greater potential for harm from a candidate, who is not bona fide, being on the ballot. This gives him standing beyond that of an ordinary citizen. We are also using the other causes of action from the Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit.
“Todd is an entrepreneur, physician, libertarian and, most importantly, a Constitutionalist. He is a business owner, father of five and a decorated veteran. He served as a flight surgeon in both the US Navy and US Air Force where he achieved the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
“Todd is passionate about liberty, limited government, checks and balances and the US Constitution, especially the Tenth Amendment.
“He takes seriously both his duty as a citizen and his oath as a military officer to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He refuses to sit idly by while his country is deconstructed and our Constitution is nullified by enemies hiding in plain sight.”
birthers seem to be prone to biting dust!
Hey Doc, I was just looking at the statute linked at the The Steady Drip. The statute says any voter may challenge a candidate “…by summary proceedings consisting of a motion before the Circuit Court of the judicial circuit in which the candidate whose bona fides is questioned resides.” Sounds like that law may not have been intended for national elections.
Good point.
Thanks for the comments so far. The article has been updated.
His name is actually Louis Todd House. He is an anesthesiologist in Louisville.
It amuses me that Collette and Sewell believe that registering as a write-in candidate somehow gives a person standing. The “injury” is still speculative, and how does House expect to win when he will be running only for Kentucky’s electoral votes?
What they haven’t told us is that Dr. House’s running mate is his wife!
http://wfpl.org/post/louisville-couple-files-write-candidates-president-and-vice-president
Few clarifications, Doc. While the ruling may be by summary procedure, nothing prevents discovery. Even if the defendants move to federal court, it will still be heard under KY law, and standing shouldn’t be an issue.
As far as venue, two other defendants, the SOS and the BOE, are venued in Franklin KY. He doesn’t have to expect to win to be injured. Some people run just to make a statement, and getting votes, even a portion of 1% is that statement. An ineligible candidate on the ballot could injure that.
As far as ripeness, by the time the hearing happens on the motion that the suit isn’t yet ripe, Obama will have been nominated and that argument will be moot. Declaratory relief can be requested in anticipation, anyway.
There will be a motion for a TRO, too. Stay tuned.
DOOMED.
It’s too bad we can’t bet on these asinine failures and make money off of their blatant stupidity.
Please spare us your asinine theories. Since when is being (allegedly) unable to make a “statement” a concrete injury? How would you be able to show that Dr. House has a better chance of making his “statement” if he ran against, say, Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama?
This has FAIL written all over it. But then we all know that winning one of these lawsuits isn’t the point, is it?
Correction Jerry: nothing PROVIDES discovery
What are you basing that on? Show me a comparitive case that succeeded in making that argument about injury.
From everything I’ve seen and read, the prevailent argument has been that if you can’t seriously compete, you don’t have a serious claim at injury.
People running for simple “political statements” and personal ego don’t really have any argument of being “injured” by another candidate, as the performance of the other candidate(s) isn’t really material to the ballot performance of the “political statement” candidate at all.
Simply put, where is the injury? The only serious argument for “injury” in an election contest stems directly from someone being able to successfully argue that the ballot performance of an opponent harmed their own personal ability to “win”, had that opponent not been on the ballot.
Sorry, but a one-state “write-in” candidate is simply NOT a serious candidacy towards being elected to the office of President at all. They have ZERO path to the required 270 EVs, regardless of who else is on the ballot.
Further, your particular candidates in this contest would be disqualified anyways, as you can’t have both the President & VP come from the same state. So not very well thought out by this “husband and wife” team of cranks at all. The whole lawsuit and their very registration as “write-in” candidates come across as a clear SHAM, with no other purpose than to bring this fraudulent and frivolous case in the first place.
This is akin to several people premeditatively planning their own car accident, with no other intent except to take the resulting injury/damages case to court. It is intentional FRAUD, pure and simple. Bottom line – you DO NOT have a “real injury” that is judiciable, anytime you manufacture all the conditions of your intended “injury” in the first place.
I thought the timeframe of “ripeness” is very much connected to a time period UP TO the time of filing…
My point is, you cannot FILE for a case, UNTIL it is actually “ripe”… you simply cannot claim injury for FUTURE events. So it doesn’t matter that the actual case might be “heard” at some later time, when these future events would take place. If the event trigger for “ripeness” has NOT taken place at the time of filing, then that filing is PREMATURE.
If these fools were smart, they would have waited another month, until after the DNC, to file.
Not that doing so would fix all the rest of the many flaws in their case, but hey, at least then they could get the ONE aspect of “ripeness” right…
*face palm*
Jerry, I see that Inspector Gadget has once again bested you, so you’re back to your other career as a buffoon attorney.
Sissy Farenthold for president: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Farenthold
Kentucky doesn’t have a “faithless elector” law, so if Mr. House wins the state, his electors could potentially play kingmaker. By winning Kentucky, Mr. House could also prevent either candidate from winning an electoral college majority and then be chosen President when the election is decided by the House of Representatives.
DIY??? Well. why should they have all the fun???
http://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/diy-birther-commitment-petition.pdf
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Your strategy is based upon the hope that:
1) The election will be close enough that faithless electors in one state with 8 electoral votes will swing the election to the point where neither candidate gets 270 votes?
2) These faithless electors will then throw their weight behind a complete nobody?
1) I’d say there’s at least a 10% chance that one candidate will win by 8 EVs or less.
2) If Mr. House wins Kentucky, he’ll have 8 electors, who could vote for House, Romney, Obama, or anybody else.
Dream on. Now you have brought “speculation” to another level altogether.
And when is Dr. House going to show us his birth certificate?
If this is genuinely about claiming the EV of Kentucky then Mr. House is equally — scratch that — more injured by Mitt Romney, who is more likely to siphon off voters. That’s called “causation.” Yet I don’t see Mr. Romney’s name on this suit as a defendant.
And what are the odds of a write-in candidate carrying Kentucky? One in a gazillion?
The odds are certainly small. But they’re not zero, as Dr. C and G have claimed.
Ooops. I corrected the DIY form above, but it is still cached even though I deleted the erroneous pdf. But anyway, here is the corrected one:
http://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/do-it-yourself.pdf
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Exactly!
Well, now you’re just pulling projective statistics out of your @ss. On what basis did you come up with even that measly 10% probability? Oh that’s right, you have NO model for it… you are just pulling a guess number out of thin air.
Sure, there are lots of model scenarios that can lead to different results…but associating any REAL probabilities to those models requires some basis in actual polling trends, in order to make legitimately serious projections.
Right now, the data trend has been overwhelmingly against Romney in any serious projection modeling and not mere “fanciful wishful thinking”. Romney will need a huge change in fortunes for your scenario to even become statistically realistic at this point, let alone achieve even a 10% probability…
Here, for you and everyone else, have fun doing your own models.
http://www.270towin.com/
Of course, if you wish to be serious instead of just fanciful, then you should pay close attention to the trendlines of various state polls as they come out, and then plug those projections in.
I recommend both
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
and
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
I would say this is the realistic range of the current trends. In fact, I’d put fivethirtyeight at the conservative low end of projections, based on current trends (303 EV for Obama) and electoral-vote as more of a direct match for where current trend lines stand today. (332 EV for Obama). But this is certainly not the full extent of a realistic range of plausibility, based on where things both stand and have been headed. Simply put, Romney has to turn things around to dig himself out of the EV hole and has a lot of ground to catch up. If he doesn’t and Obama’s trend line gains continue, Obama’s EV projections will continue to grow, with NC being the next state trending towards falling into his column as well.
Again, you are not being realistic in this fantasy scenario. It is EXTREMELY implausible and unrealistic to claim that a little known and essentially unfunded husband & wife write-in candidate could obtain ANY statistically significant ballot vote percentages within Kentucky, let alone *win* the entire state, against multiple names ACTUALLY listed on the ballot, including TWO extremely well-funded and well-known major party contenders. Name recognition alone will be difficult for those lesser-party candidates who ARE listed on the ballot, let alone for two obscure and unknown write-ins.
Further, KY will clearly stay in the GOP column, within nearly all statistically relevant measurable ranges of probability. Therefore nobody will be seriously looking towards KY as the “decider” in the currently EXTREMELY UNLIKELY “close race” scenario – nobody.
Hate to break it to you, but at the EV level, the Presidential Race is currently nowhere near a “close race”, no matter how much the media and other interests would like to portray it as such. The “popular vote” MIGHT be a lot closer…but that is irrelevant, as the EV is what determines who ends up as President.
With barely more than 90 days to go, it is certainly NOT impossible for Romney’s fortunes to change for the better, or for Obama’s to fall…but until that reversal of trend lines takes place, such scenarios simply aren’t part of any current serious factual projections….and even if a reversal took place, that is a MASSIVE amount of ground for Romney’s camp to make up , to even bring this back to a real EV “horse race”, that so many wish to pretend is there…
LIAR. Neither Dr. C nor I have ever claimed ZERO.
You really suck at math and are not demonstrating a basic grasp of how probability actually works.
If you can’t grasp the difference between realistically plausible scenarios and highly improbable ones and their correlation to statistical trend lines to base their models upon, then you are simply out of your league here and don’t know what you are talking about.
Actually you wrote “They have ZERO path to the required 270 EVs, regardless of who else is on the ballot.”
It is the “do or die” strategy in birthers’ mind. The reality is “at least failed.”
AGREED!
The likihood of Romney winning the EVs of KY is extremely high, while the chance of even his NEAREST “competition” (Obama) within that particular state, remains so implausibly low, that the chance of Obama winning KY is statistically barely above ZERO.
The trendline for KY remains fairly consistent and stable with prior Presidential elections within that state:
58% Romney (R), 41% Obama (D).
When you look at the prior 3 Presidential elections (the start of the 21st century dynamics), they mirror these results:
2008: 58% McCain (R), 41% Obama (D)
2004: 60% GWB (R), 40% Kerry (D)
2000: 56% GWB (R), 41% Gore (D)
So, within the MOE, the KY dynamic is EXTREMELY solid and consistent. Therefore, these write-in clowns have NO PLAUSIBLE argument of “injury” from Obama being on their state ballot, regardless, as Obama has basically a “snowball’s chance in he11” of winning there.
Therefore, the VERY LACK of them targeting ROMNEY in this “stunt” lawsuit, demonstrates that their case is NOT serious and not only completely WITHOUT MERIT, but also nothing but a manufactured and ficticious political stunt SHAM.
Your own source, fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com, currently gives Romney a 27% chance of winning. I’d call that a “serious” possibility. Also, 538 supports my estimate of a 10% chance of the race being decided by 8 EVs or less: look at the histogram.
Ok, you have clarified your position and I retract the statement of calling you a LIAR.
I misunderstood your implication to mean that either of us claimed ZERO percent chance for them to win the state of KY, which is a REASONABLE assumption, as that is the ONLY state that they are even registered to be a “write-in” candidate.
THEREFORE, the ENTIRE SCOPE of any discussion of their ability to obtain EV’s is CONSTRAINED to only KY!
So, a reasonable person would assume that you accused either me or Doc C of claiming their chances within KY itself was ZERO, which NEITHER of us has ever stated – just to be clear.
But to be clear, the statistical probabilities of their chances within KY alone are certainly BARELY above ZERO, so definitely within the realm of statistically insignificant and profoundly unrealistic, so I will STAND by pegging them in that range. By the mere ability to be “on” the ballot, even as a “write-in”, their probability within the state is ABOVE a “pure ZERO”, sure. But I’ve done enough real statistical analysis in the past to be able to easily peg that such probabilities, based on any available and historical data, would amount to some extremely small fractional decimal number… and therefore, more likely to round down towards “zero” (i.e. the definition of “statistically insignificant”) than towards even a full percent.
But in terms of what you just said – being able to be ELECTED President and get the 270 EVs required – then YES, absolutely they have ZERO chance of doing that! Beyond KY, they simply have NO path to legitimately and realistically obtaining ANY additional EVs and therefore, with ZERO path beyond KY, they have ZERO path to 270 and the Presidency…so YES, I will stand by that.
But then again, why would I assume you would even have jumped to such an unrealistic and unattainable SCOPE? They have NOT filed beyond KY and therefore, any discussion of them needs to be LIMITED to that KY jurisdiction.
Kentucky has less than 3% of the US electoral votes. Even IF House were to win KY, HIGHLY improbable, what chance could he have to get the other 262 necessary?
Well, you are getting a bit better with starting to back up your statements with actual numbers, so I will correspondingly dialogue with you in a less dismissive manner and treat this as a valid discussion and not just you coming here and making up numbers for the sake of being a troll.
First things first, let’s NOT conflate two different arguments here and keep them separate – because they ARE:
Your FIRST (main) argument was about the probabilities of Todd House in his “write-in candidacy” for President WITHIN the state of KY. THAT is where YOU introduced your ficticious 10% number, which to someone who actually deals with probabilities, set my BS detector off immediately, as there is NO data to support a mere unknown one-state “write-in” having anywhere near a 10% chance of anything.
NOW, the conversation has expanded to introduce a second argument and ALSO talk about Romney’s candidacy chances – a completely separate argument and set of probabilities from Mr. House .
So, let’s keep those two distinct issues separate and not conflate or confuse them, please.
That being said, your statement below correctly pertains to Nate Silver’s current projection of Romney’s chances to “win” in November. So the remainder of this post will focus on THAT only.
If you wish to take solace and comfort in that 27% chance of winning and use that as your justification, I’m fine with that being the basis and foundation of your arguments going forward. It gives you the actual real data necessary as a starting point for formulating a sound opinion.
However, I would argue that you need to still get a deeper understanding of what this data and the trendlines are showing…and that you are simply jumping to numbers such as 27%, without REALLY understanding what that probability means or would entail in order to convert to an EV “win” and therefore, you’ve lost sight of what needs to still happen in trendlines, in order for that 27% to go UP towards a “possible win” and not further DOWN.
(Hint: 27% chance of winning is NOT a good place for a candidate to be 90 days out from an election – a ACTUAL close race would put the odds near 50% chance or greater. 27% odds between 2 candidates pretty much amounts to a “long shot”)
The key takeaway is that Romney has SERIOUS work to do and quite an UPHILL battle to climb in order to improve his chances. What is worse is that the trendlines are NOT at all in his favor…and lately have been trending AGAINST him. So, he needs to drastically change his fortunes in order to improve his chances.
There are 6 main factors in this type of race that have the traditional potential to change and shape trend lines:
1. VP selection (can certainly help, can possibly hurt, but is rarely a true “game changer”)
2. Convention (usually gives each party a temporary bump in polling…but it requires other positive factors to convert that temporary poll gain into a stable trend line gain)
3. Money (unlikely to matter this year, as both campaigns have such overwhelming funding that the maximum saturation impact of $ can just be assumed to already be in effect)
4. Personality/charisma/trustworthiness appeal of candidate – Romney has major all-around deficiencies here, and therefore there is little reason to expect him to be able to turn around his trendlines along this particular set of criteria.
5. Strength/positive appeal of specific campaign platform details – Another area where Romney has been amazingly intentionally vague, often negative and has an unprecidented number of position flip-flops. His Convention Speech will be his best chance to try to put something concrete forward…but he’s had 7 years of trying to run for President and hasn’t been able to pull of #4 or #5 yet…so it is completely reasonable to be utterly cynical towards his chances of still doing enough to turn around his campaign trajectory in these criteria.
6. The national Presidential & VP Debates in October – these have the potential to have a significant impact…but if the challenger’s odds-to-win haven’t climbed up much closer to 50% by this point, the gulf is likely too insurmountable to overcome by then.
7. Some major unpredictable crisis, which completely changes the campaign dynamic for all candidates. Impacts/trending will depend on how each candidate reacts. See: Financial collapse in Oct 2008.
Because of things like #7, you can never truly count any major candidate out until the Nov vote takes place, but based on where they are 90-days out and where the trendlines currently stand, matched up against each of the campaign’s demonstrated abilities to perform, I see very little to indicate that Romney is capable of overcoming his current EV deficit.
(NOTE: I still can’t find the specific historogram you mention that justifies a realistic 10% chance for this contest actually coming down to within 8 EVs…so if you can be more specific in linking directly to / pointing out / explaining your reasoning there, I’d be happy to take a fresh look and re-analyze that specific claim of yours.)
In terms of this original argument from you, I simply don’t think you took the time to research and make an informed opinion, and simply tossed out a number like 10%, because it seemed reasonably small to you on the surface.
I apologize if I overly jumped on you for this, but once you see the actual data, maybe you will understand why it immediately leaped out as a preposterously unrealistic and unfounded claim to me and made me immediately distrustful of your statements, as a result.
So, let’s start off with the most relevant comparitive data example: the 2008 Presidential election in KY and look at who was on the ballot there and how it turned out.
Here’s probably the easiest intro to those results to view at a glance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Kentucky,_2008
As you can see, beyond the major 2 parties, NONE of the other NAMED candidates could even muster a whole ONE PERCENT:
Nader (Independent): 0.84 %
Barr (Libertarian): 0.33 %
Baldwin (Constitution): 0.26%
And those are the TOP THREE next challengers on that KY ballot, below the main 2 parties! Below that, there are even smaller party candidates and NAMED independents on the ballot. Their vote totals are so low, that they are effectively too “statistically insignificant” to even get mentioned in most results.
BELOW EVEN THAT is where any unfunded, no-name recognition “write-in” candidate’s chances would fall…
Here is the official FEC stats for the 2008 election, if you want to dive into more details and see more obscure names. ALL states are individually broken down and listed:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf
So, I hope you can now understand why a mere one-state “no-name” “write-in” falls in the realm of so statistically improbable to actually WIN even that ONE state; that such attempts simply cannot be viewed as anything other than a non-serious “vanity campaign” at best.
Therefore, the dubious claim, of this lame SHAM “write-in” attempt, actually meeting some special threshold for “standing” and “injury” is both specious and laughable on its face.
But since I guess the chances are 100% that he will
(a) fail to claim that in his complaint and/or
(b) fail to substantiate that claim with any factual evidence,
this argument will not carry the day. How many times have courts ruled in birther cases that “plaintiff fails to allege…” or “plaintiff does not claim that he…”?
This is why these cases are bound to fail. Even a non-lawyer from a foreign country like me knows that you have to make substantiated claims of particularized injury, not just “I am on the ballot, too” or “I might win”. (As far as I’ve seen, even your birther “lawyers” like Orly and Van Irion failed to make such claims in proper fashion. Which again led me to believe that birthers are playing to lose – at least Van Irion should know how to properly plead such cases.)
And of course the claim that if Mr House should take Kentucky (and no other state) – which is highly improbable on its own -, Congress would crown him President over Obama and Romney who both took all the other states is simply bizarro-worldish.
Haven’t you birthers learned by now that *speculative* injury has been thrown out again and again and again?
Haven’t you seen how your precious Purpura vs. Sibelius (sp?) went, where plaintiffs didn’t even claim they would fall under the ACA provisions sometime after 2014, let alone substantiated that claim?
Ah, a potential King and Queen, how lovely!
And when you don’t get that opportunity, will you finally admit that perhaps you don’t actually have a gifted legal mind?
I hate to argue with a Mensa member and Gifted Legal Mind, but I don’t see how a candidate is hurt by having an ineligible opponent. In fact, shouldn’t one actually be HELPED by the fact that one’s opponent is ineligible? Surely the ineligibility of one’s opponent could be a good issue (unless the voters don’t really care about eligibility, which may well be the case).
Furthermore, House MD is a fictional character and Hugh Laurie, who plays him, is British, so he himself is ineligible.
Oops… It would be a refreshing change of pace if, some day, those who claim to be Constitutionalists would actually read the Constitution.
KY Rules of Civil Procedure do.
It was very well thought out, and we even thought about your point, maybe even more than you did. The residency requirements for candidates is as of the date of the election (there is lots of case law on this from carpet baggers), which they may cure between now and then if they look like they might win.
I think a Todd House from Kentucky was listed on Orly’s site as a contributor a while back.
Brilliant analysis!
It depends, but that is something that a birther plaintiff would have to argue.
It will help if you’re the runner-up to a clear favourite because you would likely not have won against the person who replaced him, had he been removed from the ballot. (If Obama were removed, the write-in candidate would still not have won against whoever would replace him.) So if you’re the runner-up with 10% of the votes against the ineligible candidate with 70% of the vote and the winner is disqualified, you take the win.
However if you can argue that you will lose 48-49 against the winner but the ineligible candidate got the remaining 3 percent and that those would’ve voted for you otherwise, you would have a case that without the ineligible candidate on the ballot, you would have won, so you’re harmed by him being on the ballot.
The birther problem is that they cannot argue that as it’s totally unrealistic, thus only speculative injury.
KY is a notice pleading state.
Kentucky is a zero. They sent Rand Paul to the Senate – a radical right, third rate physician, with a deep seated dislike of minorities, and filled with anger that his sense of entitlement has been infringed on.
I didn’t say I had a perfect one, and I recognize that we don’t have a perfect judicial system.
Turning your logic around, however, even if I succeed wouldn’t prove that I’m gifted.
By the way, I don’t take credit for my gifts. I was born gifted.
Typically, every candidate is harmed by another on the ballot in the same race. When NV changed it’s voting laws to have “none of the above,” all candidates vote totals went down, particularly third parties, votes for which, elsewhere and previously in NV, are often, in reality, NOTA votes.
You are falsely assuming that we didn’t read it. I commented on this point already, above.
While Kentucky rules do appear to permit discovery for a summary judgment, the particulars of this statute, because of the expedited nature and the hearing and the language suggest to me that discovery is not available:
“The motion shall be tried summarily and without delay. Proof may be heard orally,”
I don’t think this statute is a fishing license.
So therefore, we should have a one candidate race, I guess? I honestly see you birthers as being Communists, modelling yourselves after the PRK.
Ah, a narcissistic personality. That confirms what I always have said about birthers, truthers, Holocaust deniers, John Hagee and the rest – a bunch of clinical bigots.
BTW, if you’re so gifted, why haven’t you passed the LSAT? You and Orly are successful graduates of the Fly By Night school of law and auto mechanics.
Actually, birthers are fascists. Please do not cast aspersions on the kibbutzim.
Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen. – Лев Троцкий
Judge Carter in California (Barnett v. Obama) contended with Defense arguments regarding the standing of candidates who had no chance of winning (not on enough state ballots).
The judge was very reluctant to deny standing to a minority candidate, asking where one draws the line and talking about a slippery slope. Read his decision and in particular pages 14-15.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD
Equally instructive, however, Carter did dismiss the lawsuit on other grounds and I think that this decision is a road map as to why House loses.
Surely you wouldn’t compare kibbutzim with North Korea? Kibbutzim are voluntary collectives working for the benefit of all the members (as is Bain Capital, which was Romney’s kibbutz). North Korea is an ugly brutal dictatorship where much of the population starves.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You can’t be serious. Be chosen president? Are you considering that nobody knows who this guy is and an entire nation will be left wondering how someone with so few votes could actually win an election? You are not serious. You can’t be serious. Get out of here and go back to the hole you crawled out of.
I have to tell you, after almost 20 years of being online and hundreds of thousands of discussions, this has GOT to be the most insane, inane, deranged post I have ever read. Nobody can take this seriously, and you need a mental evaluation if you seriously think this is reality.
Well, while you say you don’t take credit for them, you certainly advertise them. Isn’t that kind of the same thing?
So the answer is no, you are not going to accept that you’ve been completely wrong in all of this. You’re going to continue banging your head against a wall and filing lawsuits and crying out “treason” into your pillow at night because you just have to believe it can’t be anything else. And yet, you’ve gotten advice here previously and it turned out exactly as people told you it would and you refuse to accept it. Another person who needs to seek mental help.
Yeah? Would you be willing to put money on it?
Courts have recognized that it would be an unworkable mess if all 50 states individually said who was and was not eligible to run for President.
Yes, but the difference is that the plaintiffs in that case were candidates who actually lost to Obama. They at least could allege injury which wasn’t patently hypothetical and speculative.
Anyway, my comment was directed to Ragout’s claim that House could actually carry Kentucky.
Or maybe his BFF Sam can provide him with endless hours of unlicensed pastoral therapy.
So basically either the husband or wife would take up a sham residence in another state in order to circumvent the 12th Amendment? That’s your idea of being a Constitutionalist?
None of these people are really Constitutionalists, they just like to say they are.
All well and good, but you no doubt get all the credit for misusing your gifts.
It is pretty easy to find his address in Louisville, KY. I checked the street view on Google Maps and found something funny. Hint: it has nothing to do with the house it is just the timing of when the Google-cam drove by.
I think there are quite a few assumptions, probably some of which are incorrect, that were used to come to that conclusion.
Actually, BHO and his supporters are much closer to communist platform than most birthers.
Agreed!
No, I have them, but I didn’t create them.
Nope. he and we are capitalists, pal. We like choice-the more candidates to choose from the better. You guys are one party dictatorship types. I see little difference between you and Kim III of the PRK.
No, it wouldn’t be sham. It would have to be real. It’s been done many times for House and Senate seats, and the courts have upheld it.
I believe the term you’re looking for is “special” aka “mentally retarded”.
I know of your kind. You possess superhuman strength, and when direct eye contact is made, you go into a flurry of fist and elbows. Your victims scream “NO! NO! NO!”, but all you hear is “Who wants cake?”
Another fevered and specious delusion of RWNJ, that has no basis in reality.
You are talking to a kibbutznik. You know zero. You are a scurrilous, vile rabble-rouser. The kibbutzim, which are pure communism, are a raucous democracy.
Birthers, especially Orly Taitz, are fascists. Since you are sooo brilliant, I suggest you learn history. You are of the same school as Willard Mitt Romney. When he’s not putting dogs on the car roof, he’s being a two-faced closet anti-Semite.
That sentence makes zero sense – as everything Denialists say. Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.
I certainly recognize the fine line between genius and insanity, and that I have crossed and straddled it.
You crossed it buddy boy, and stayed there.
In all fairness, if I understand Communism (which is a dubious claim), it is collective ownership of the means of production. The auto and financial bailouts under the Obama administration were particularly short-lived. I don’t see birthers advocating collectivism either. Communism also seems to be about the discredited idea that perfected government will create perfected people, thereby removing the need for government. It’s possible that the far right have a related view that if the government got out of the way, the people would flourish and that government could largely go away. I think that’s a deeply naive view of human nature.
Calling either side “communist” is just baiting in my view. Calling the birthers “fascists” I could go along with sometimes. I could buy “seditionists” too.
So are lynch mobs and gang rapes. The purpose of a republic is to protect the rights of minorities, despite any majority sentiment to the contrary.
Democracies tend to lead to communism, as people vote themselves more and more from “everybody else.” That’s why the constitution guarantees a republican form of government to the states.
Let’s apply the theory that society gets more of what is rewarded and less of what is penalized with the glorious premise of communism, “From each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs.” It’s a setup for rewarding being needy and penalizing being able. Such a society will inevitably create more needy people and fewer able ones.
We’re not talking about Congressional candidates here, Jerry. We’re talking about running for the positions of President & VP.
I suspect that your “novel” approach to “creative thinking” here stems from the fact that these requirements of separation of the President & VP in Article II of the Constitution as well as the Twelvth Amendment are tied to the EC electors and NOT the candidates themselves. Granted, that is a common and understandable misperception folks have about how the election process for said offices actually work.
In fact, Snopes has done a good job of covering and explaining such scenarios:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/vicepresident.asp
But, if you and your patsies – I mean “clients” here have actually discussed this issue, I still fail to see how you are able to address this requirement, considering that your purported write-in candidates are eligible to appear only on the ballot in the state of KY .
As per the Twelfth Amendment:
So please, entertain us with HOW a one-state write-in ticket consisting of a husband and his own wife, can get around the Twelfth Amendment.
I’m dying to hear this….
…or are you now claiming that they are registered as valid ballot candidates in more than just KY?
…Because even then, you have to be able to make a plausible case (not just merely “possible” but actually “plausible”) that either historical data or evidence would support the notion of such an obscure and clearly “vanity” campaign for President being successful enough to garnish even a single Elector in a state, let alone within multiple states…
That really DOES stretch the imagination beyond credulity!
To save folks the trouble, it’s a sign in the yard saying: “Chill Out Suzanne. You’re only 40.”
Sorry, I don’t subscribe to your POV or theories on how this “inevitably” would work. You merely see those as the limitations of eventual outcomes, merely because you are too narrow-minded to see beyond such black-and-white binary thinking. You are just jumping to drawing simplistic causative correlations and conclusions because you wish to see what you wish to see and nothing more.
All “a republican form of government” means is that there is no monarch. Nothing more. So all of the following are or were republics: The US, France, today’s Germany, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the USSR, Syria under the Assads.
The reason the first 3 are pretty OK places to live and the last 3 are/were not comes down to one word DEMOCRACY.
And there are democracies that are not republics that are quite pleasant place to live also: the UK, Canada, Japan, Norway. So if I had to choose between a democracy without a republic or a republic without democracy, there is no question that the former is the best choice by far.
AGREED on all points. Well said!
All that has to happen is on the day the electors vote is for the Pres and VP for whom the electors are voting be inhabitants of different states, and the candidates can meet that requirement on the day the electors vote.
I’ll bet even people without gifted legal minds can understand that.
Agreed. That is how I see it too. I would add that we prefer respecting freedom of choice in general.
So the kibbutzim are analogous to lynch mobs and gang rapes?! I’ll tell you the real, live lynch mobs: birthers.
One last note: get help. I am not going to deign to discuss anything more with someone with a tenuous grip on reality.
Unlike some people, I don’t have a gifted legal mind; perhaps that’s why this explanation seems very far-fetched.
And fascist societies euthanized those who were needy and disabled. I’ll take communism, AKA kibbutzim. Far more glorious.
Please write out your pledge that you will never use the public library, public transportation, or anything subsidized by the government.
I’m waiting.
Show me how that does not meet the 12th Amendment requirements? There is no case law on this, but there is lots of it on House and Senate seats, which use similar language.
Nobody ever said anything about creating those “gifts”. You set yourself up to profit off of them though, and chose your career in the process.
Like a stopped clock, Jerry is occasionally correct and this may be the exception that proves the rule. There was a simillar issue with Bush and Cheney. Cheney had spent the previous several years as CEO of Halliburton, headquarted iin Houston, TX and livving in Texas. Thus, there were arguments that Texas electors should have been barred from voting for both. Given the close Electoral College margin, that would have meant either Gore with Cheney as Veep or Bush with Lieberman as Veep. However, the court ruled that Cheney could claim Wyoming as his residence.
No roads, no sidewalks, no electricity, no telephones, no computers, no water, no trash collection, no, no, no!
I agree with you, Misha. All you have to do is read the comments, and sometimes even the articles, at birther sites, to discover how often birthers fantasize about seeing physical (and sometimes sexual violence) carried out against the President, his wife, members of Congress, the judiciary, and average citizens who oppose their seditious nonsense.
You said that the kibbutzim were raucous democracies. I replied that lynch mobs and gang rapes were, too. I made, nor implied, no other analogy.
What state does Mrs. House live in? Does she live with her husband?
Why are we even talking about this? We are talking about a write-in candidate from Kentucky and his wife who will not even win in their own precinct. I am betting they will not waste their vote on themselves!
I think you misunderstand that word Democracy, Democracy does not include slaves. People made to be victims of sexual abuse and murder are not participating members of a democracy that does such. Democracy means all people have rights. Gang rape victims and lynching victims do not have rights in a group where the raping and lynching is occurring. You really need to be evaluated.
Me too!
Jerry: Republics without democracy are bad (USSR, Islamic Republic of Iran, Syria). Democracies that are not republics (the UK, Canada, Sweden, Japan) are good. So, of course are republics with democracy (the US, France, Germany). Democracy is essential, a republic is optional.
No getting around it Jerry, facts are facts,,,,,
I already told you I don’t have a gifted legal mind, so I can’t show how it does not meet the 12th Amendment requirements; nevertheless, it still seems far-fetched. But look: having spent so much time around birthers, Jerry, shouldn’t you honor the authority of guy who passes judgment on something he knows nothing about? ; )
Yup. Hit the nail on the head and drove it into the stud.
I understand that your explanation here is, quite frankly daft.
I contend that you do not properly grasp how the EC works at all, particularly in how each state establishes its slate of electors.
Even in the situation of what is known as “faithless electors”, that doesn’t seem to apply to the truly fanciful and completely unrealistic scenario that you propose.
Yes, I am aware that KY does not require “bound” electors and therefore allows “faithless elector” scenarios. However, you seem to fail to grasp what that actually implies. For one, a “faithless elector” simply means that the elector WITHIN that state’s jurisdiction is NOT merely bound (constrained) to cast their EV for that state’s particular ballot winner.
The slate of EC electors are not just random people off the street. They are preselected names on officially submitted lists, which are controlled by the major political parties within each state.
So yes, first of all, WITHIN the KY slate of electors, by the laws of the 12th Amendment, THOSE electors “vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves”. Simply put, nobody within the KY slate of electors can cast a vote for that combined husbant-wife ticket!
To suggest that the slate of electors in SOME OTHER state might contain a “faithless elector” to go along with casting a ballot for either of your “vanity” candidates is beyond preposterous and ludicrous!
The political parties within those other states control there own slate of electors, which will be based upon THAT state’s election results. Therefore, to even posit that they would be (or even could legally be) so “faithless” as to cast a vote for some mere portion of a vanity write-in ticket from some OTHER state, which never even was a valid option within their own state’s ballot, over their own election results and options is beyond the stretch of sane credulity.
You recently quipped about the fine line between genious and insanity. Well this is way over that line…heck, its way over the cliff of insanity. There is nothing remotely “genius” about how flawed your rationale is here…it is pure stupidity.
AGREED! Well said. It is simply both reprehensible and ludicrously warped in an completely twisted and sick way, to view the brutish group-think mob mentalities behind gang rapes and lynchings as any form of “democratic” process…
That is totally F***ed up!!!
Excellent points and examples!
Sure they can, if one of the spousal pair is not an inhabitant of KY on the day they vote. It’s that simple.
Scientist mostly nailed it, above, but I think I’m right more often than twice a day.
P.S. Personal attacks are not necessary.
Yeah, I fail to see how any purporting to be on “that side” of these arguments can justify, condone, or even glibly give a “free pass” to those endless examples of such dark and criminal/seditious fantasy intent from their “brethren” .
You NEVER see a Birther or their ilk coming out to condemn or even criticize such statements.
Therefore, they really are tarnished by the crowd they hang out with and the implicit tactic support they give to them…and deservedly so.
Disgusting and reprehensible. These people have no shame and a very broken moral compass.
Not as regards birther stuff. I can’t speak for the rest of your life. Just for fun, make a World Series pick and we’ll see in a few months.
And democracies beat republics OVERWHELMINGLY
Or 911 service. Why pay to protect the life and property of seditious bigots who despise the concept of “promote the general welfare”?
The only comparison is that they are done by majority rule, and that minorities get their rights trampled. In the case of gang rapes and lynchings, the minorities may be minorities of one person, but the analogy still applies.
Whenever I read the comments at ORYR, which are so often filled with profane rants, racial slurs, and calls for military coups or mob violence, I have to laugh at the site manager’s notice:
“I am forced to moderate the comments at this site due to the Obama defenders constant porn spam and threatening comments.”
Can you name me a democracy that does not provide protections for minorities? Do you know that kibbutzim do not? In fact, they most certainly do. Every decision on a kibbutz involves exhaustive discussion at which everybody is heard and heard again (and again, and again). Some kibbutzim find it difficult to take any decisions at all because they want so much to make everybody happy.
You really ought to shut up about things you are ignorant of (which is an awful lot).
Really? This coming from the party that wants to make poor people poorer? And, let’s talk about the power within our own Minority Republican Senate which filibusters just about every single thing that comes down the pike, shall we? Our Senate is actually a place where the minority is currently trampling the rights of the majority. Please show me where 3/5’s was necessary for bills to be passed historically back to the beginning of the founding of this nation?
Such an intentionally and obviously contrived timing of change of established residence is not going to be deemed credible – either before a court or amongst a slate of electoral college electors.
Such a blatant and obvious stunt to abuse the process would easily garnish a challenge and not stand.
Talk about a premeditated intent towards intentionally deceptive practices!!!
If anything, your crazy and implausible scenario would most likely result in nothing more than severely backfiring on you, and leading to a whole host of LEGITIMATE claims of injury from other candidates towards your fraud slate stunt, with good reason to charge you as a conspirator and party to that suit… and THOSE cases (under such a scenario) would have a much greater chance of winning than any of your laughable Birther attempts!
Most importantly here, the biggest flaw in your whole ludicrous scheme in KY is that you would NOT be battling over the ability to control electors and their vote with Obama at all, but with ROMNEY!!!
So please, can your brilliant mind explain why Romney is NOT a named party in your lawsuit?
Agreed. I echo your response.
And now that your ruse has been electronically transferred on the internet, it is a matter of public record and can be used to prove the ruse. That’s some gifted legal mind you have there. Bwahahahahahaha!
I made no personal attacks against you that I am aware of. I attacked, criticized and characterized your ideas and rationale, not you personally.
Apparently talking about his ideas is the personal attack.
Oh, I don’t know, G, Cheney got away with it and the courts upheld it. 🙂
House and Senate candidates have done similar things, and the courts have repeatedly upheld it.
Romney has not joined the suit. so he is not named as a plaintiff. If you think he’s an ineligible candidate, you are free to use the DIY kit and name him as a defendant.
The argument and circumstances for Cheney credibly claiming WY residency is quite a bit different than the clearly intentional fraud scenario that Jerry is proposing between a married husband and wife, who currently seem to share only one residence.
Cheney grew up in WY and formerly served there as congressman. He was also an extremely wealthy man, who could very plausibly afford to own and maintain property in several states, should he chose. Although he had been living in TX, he took enough steps to sufficiently RE-ESTABLISH primary residency in WY, at least in the court’s eyes, including his voter registration and driver’s license. There was enough to his particular life circumstances to make a plausible argument for him to legitimately return to living primarily in his former home state and to him being able to conduct his various business dealings (provided he didn’t get elected) from other states.
It is important to note that Cheney WAS taken and challenged in Federal Court over this issue. Therefore, Mr. & Mrs. House had better be prepared to similary withstand a Federal Court challenge over the issue, should they carry through with their foolish scam…
It is a bit harder for a husband and wife to convincingly make the argument that they will be “suddenly” living in separate states and filing separate state taxes, registering for voting, getting different state driver’s licenses, etc., without this being seen as nothing more than a purely contrived sham run-around attempt on the 12th Amendment… Even the argument of claiming that they are suddenly “separated” wouldn’t pass the “smell test”… I mean what married couple would “separate”, yet still intentionally run on a political ticket together…
The bottom line is that Jerry wound up with possibly the worst combo excuse to put on a Presidential ticket in one of the worst states (deeply red KY) to try to pull off this scam. That combo of unfortunate choices is turning out to be an even worse joke and weaker case than I thought his frivolous Ballot Challenge Kit was capable of producing…
IMHO, this has to go down as the most poorly thought through idea he’s come up with yet.
Cheney at least went to the effort of changing his voter registration and drivers license to Wyoming after he chose himself to be Bush’s running mate. He owned property in Jacksons Hole too. Apparently, the courts thought that was enough. Ironically, do you know who argued on behalf of Bush/Cheney in that lawsuit? It was none other that Harriet Miers.
Ragout is certainly correct that the chances of his scenario are not zero. The chances of every horse in Kentucky suddenly sprouting a horn and wings to become a unicorn/pegasus hybrid are also not zero. Both are as likely though.
Again, apples and oranges, Jerry. Apples and oranges. House and Senate candidates are jurisdictionally constrained within a single state alone. The positions of President and Vice President are uniquely different in those respects.
Now you are just offering a weak excuse and dodge. Face it, you simply can’t sustain a plausible argument for “injury” (not that you have one in this particular mere novelty one-state write-in scenario, regardless), when the only TRUE competitive threat your “candidate clients” could face in KY happens to be Romney and NOT Obama!
KY is simply NOT a credible state for Obama to be competitive in. How are you going to make an argument of being injured by the distant second-place finisher in the state??? Explain that one to us.
Mr. Collette is certainly correct that one of the purposes of a Republic is to protect the rights of a minority from the excesses of a majority. However, he does not seem to realize that it is not the purpose of a Republic to protect the delusions of a fringe nutcase minority.
In fact, one of the purposes of a Republic is to protect the rights of the majority from being abrogated by either a powerful elite, or (in the case of birthers) a loud and clearly deluded fringe.
The majority chose the President, by way of the laws governing such things, and the Republic and Rule of Law now serve to protect the will of the people, backed by law, from the sore losers and seditionists (birthers) who would thwart it.
No Internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was the world’s first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet. The network was funded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) which later evolved into the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense for use by its projects at universities and research laboratories in the US.
Curious thing in the DIY template:
What is the function of the words “Democratic Party” in this sentence? Do they check Republicans?
Oh, the thing Al Gore created.
In case it hasn’t been made clear enough (because it is SOOO obvious that you really have NOT thought any of this through in any realistic and practical manner of argument), you are trying to tell us that you are claiming potential injury AGAINST someone most likely to finish a DISTANT SECOND, while at the same time, completely IGNORING and NEGLECTING to claim injury against the MOST PROBABLE WINNER!
Again, it simply doesn’t pass the smell test and smacks of nothing but blatant and pure political theater and nothing more.
Do you really think you wouldn’t be quickly be faced with answering this very same question, challenging the legitimacy of your claims (provided your case doesn’t get tossed out before anyone even needs to bring up such an obvious “plot hole” in your scenario…)
I’m just baffled by how you never seem to think any of these steps through…
I’m fully aware of that. See my response to Scientist at 2:14pm. See also Reality Check’s response at 2:16pm, which echos those points of distinction.
I am merely a student of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck who raped and murdered a girl.
P.S. – Your cat is dead.
misha:
Obama Was Right: Government Invented the Internet
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/07/who_invented_the_internet_the_outrageous_conservative_claim_that_every_tech_innovation_came_from_private_enterprise_.html
Agreed! And that was the point I was trying to get through to him too…
What is it with Birthers and mistakingly thinking the courts entertain “fishing expeditions” anyways? They most certainly do not.
All part of a flawed “magical thinking” lazy mentality, I guess….
From Snopes:
Claim: Vice President Al Gore claimed that he invented the Internet.
False. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
What a vague and specious notion! Where exactly is the particularized and concrete injury?
There simply isn’t a credible and plausible argument to be made in this particular case for one.
Face it, frivolous abusers of the courts, such as the Sov Cit movement make bogus arguments that consistently fail to hold up and meet the true tests of a claim’s merit all the time. Which is why such junk get’s properly tossed out of court fairly quickly and never makes it to any further “real” stages.
This case will be no different. If anything, it is one of the flimsiest and most tenuous attempts I’ve seen to date.
I take that back – there was that case with the plantiff who tried a similar argument during the primaries, but who failed to register as a candidate until AFTER he filed the case! LMAO!!! Now THAT was even more flimsy, contrived, tenuous and pathetically sad than this one.
Wasn’t that in PA? Wasn’t Mario the “genius” behind that spectacularly laughable failure?
The statute (KRS 118.176 Challenging Good Faith of a Candidate) says that the proceeding must be in the county of residence of the candidate being challenged. Obama is not a resident of Franklin County, KY. How do you get around that?
That was Dummett in TN, Van Irion was the atty.
Thanks for the clarification and correction!
“Jerry Collette: Typically, every candidate is harmed by another on the ballot in the same race. ”
Which pretty much takes care of that particularized injury.
Well, yeah, believe it or not I did know those things.
This is all academic exercise anyway. Once this stupid baseless lawsuit is tossed the good doc and his wife and not going to campaign, and likely won’t even carry their own precinct, much less their own county. He/they are straw candidates for no other reason that filing this frivolous lawsuit, just as are Dummett and a couple of others.
Sammy Sewer thinks by doing this they (the birthers) are winning. That must be correct as both he and Collette are brilliant and gifted folks.
Okay Ted Kaczinsky’s doppleganger.
Every decision was turned into a Talmudic discussion. It’s amazing anything got done. That’s the real Israel – not the Israel promoted by the evangelicals and their meshugana stooges.
No, only a candidate has it. That’s pretty particular.
I dispute the notion the “every candidate is harmed by another in the same rate.” George Bush was not harmed by Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000. In fact, he almost certainly would not have won if Nader had not been on the ballot. You have no evidence that keeping Obama off the ballot would help Mr House. In fact, the Kentucky Democratic party would simply place an alternate name on the ballot and since there is no faithless elector law, they could vote for Obama anyway. Not that the Democrats are going to win Kentucky anyway. Or that your suit will go anywhere.
It is DOOMED!!!
I’m still waiting to hear an explanation of HOW any minor candidate in KY could go after the Democratic Presidential candidate there (which has no credible chance of winning) YET completely fail to go after the GOP candidate, who is the clear and obvious frontrunner and most likely to win.
How exactly would an argument of “injury” work to explain how they were”injured” by the candidiacy of just a distant second-place losing candidate, yet NOT the likely winner???
.
Romney doesn’t appear to be ineligible. If you think he is, you can use the DIY kit.
And he STILL won’t take your advice.
Because it’s not about any actual injury, it’s only about trying to remove a sitting president from gaining a second term.
Void birth certificate
No long form with doctor’s signature
Foreign born father
Parents lived a few miles from a foreign country
The point Jerry, is not whether G or I or anyone else should get your kit and challenge Romney (not that I would use your useless kit if I were going to) it is simply this-
Is Jerry Collette a hypocrite for calling Obama ineligible yet accepting Romney’s eligibility on faith?
The answer: HELL, YES!! JERRY COLLETTE IS A 100% HYPOCRITICAL PHONY!!!
when is this farce supposed to be taking place? I want to mark it on my calendar so I can wipe your face in this piece of crap you placed here. Standing WILL be an issue, you cannot petition the courts to play games like this and I will be here and happy to remind you each and every time that I see you that standing IS an issue.
uhhhh, no, it’s not.
And just because you have a fake candidate filing this frivolous POS does not give him standing, which birthers claim the holding in Barnett v Obama from the Ninth gives them, which it doesn’t… you still have to show an injury, and there’s no way in hell House can show a particularized injury.
I see you got the avatar updated. I must say you had the ugliest, meanest randomly-generated I have ever seen.
Funny, I had the same though. LMAO
G, When they win the election, you can challenge them.
I thought you had picked it, Doc. Thanks for the tip on how to change it.
I’d do a ballot challenge against Rubio, and his politics are much closer to mine than Romney’s.
Move to strike as unresponsive.
Where was Romney born? Answer the question, sir.
Standing requires injury, causation and redressability. I don’t see how a state court can decide who’s eligible to be President. If not then whatever House’s asking for is outside of what the court can redress, hence he has no standing.
That’s not going to happen, as you well know.
The point is that you birthers claim to be defenders of the Constitution, yet you have demonstrated that you would have no compunction about circumventing the clear intent of the 12th Amendment by having Dr. House and his wife pretend to be separated and living in different states. The only justification which you have proffered for this ruse is that you believe it would work. You obviously have not considered that it would at best be dishonest and unethical – or if you did consider it, you have concluded that honesty and ethics do not figure in your equation.
Your partner in this cynical exercise, Sam Sewell, has made it abundantly clear that this is not about winning a lawsuit or an election. It is about keeping the dying birher movement on life support. That is truly pathetic.
Mr. Collette informs me that the case is filed, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order barring the Secretary of State from printing ballots with Obama’s name on them.
Cornell Law School says of the TRO:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/temporary_restraining_order
What is the nature of the immediate irreparable harm in this case?
So rather than to prevent harm, it’s a tactic to cause the defense such inconvenience that he becomes more cooperative. The judge is gonna love that. Not.
Mr. Collette appears to have an ethical blind spot when it comes to his ballot challenges, not unlike the blind spot he and other birthers have in evaluating the evidence that proves they’re wrong.
He seems like a nice enough fellow, but he’s left the building as far as good sense goes. The Russians have a word, сумасше’ший, that literally means one who has stepped away from his mind.
Jack Ryan has uploaded the Complaint and the Motion for TRO.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102577890/HvO-Complaint-Aug-2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102577891/2012-08-10-KY-HvO-Motion-for-TRO
Unsurprisingly, there is nothing new, just the same tired allegations about Obama’s birth certificate, SSN, Selective Service Registration, Indonesian citizenship, etc.
You’re a nutcase and a racist. Rat poison might help.
People like you don’t deserve a microphone.
The TRO is one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in the whole history of the DIY.
One has to give Jerry credit for one thing: he’s not a whiner.
He’s certainly not a winner either
I can’t give him very much credit. The man refuses to accept reality.
I dunno, Doc, he sounded pretty whiny on RC Radio.
I guess we mean whiny in different sense. I mean in overall approach, I believe you mean he is not crying over his defeats.
Two things Jerry:
1) Unless there is a major change in fortunes for the Romney camp, there is very little worry on my part that they have any real chance of “winning” the election. This assessment has very little to do with my clear preference for Obama over Romney and simply is where the odds currently favor, based on performance and statistical modelling of the EV map. It simply remains Obama’s race to lose.
2) If fortunes change and Romney somehow wins the election, I am NOT a sore loser and would never waste time with frivolous lawsuits. I would be extremely disappointed in Romney being elected (to put it mildly), but I would RESPECT the results and accept that he would be President for at least the next four years, just as I ALWAYS have in every prior Presidential election in my lifetime. Of course I would be extremely concerned and worried about the fate of our nation under his administration, but if he wins, then all I can do is accept and RESPECT that he was elected President and hope that it works out better than what my fears presume. After all, this is my country and my home so I NEVER want to see it fail or go downhill and want to see progress and success take place, no matter whether I “like” the guy in charge or not. I would criticize in areas of where I disagree on policy and NOT wallow in silly nonsense and debased smear myths and conspiracy, devoid of true substance.
When will you folks learn to simply respect and accept the results of an election? It has nothing to do with whether you like or chose the winner or not. Face it, if a candidate can’t win an election fair and square, they simply don’t deserve to win, whether you personally “prefer” them or not.
No, I don’t need to ever file frivolous challenges, because I don’t buy into any of the bunk claims of Birtherism, nor do I believe in playing sham propaganda games with our courts time and taxpayer’s dime.
DYI . . . hmm, does that stand for “Do Yourself In”?
Wrong. If by some miracle of miracles they should win a plurality of votes in the Electoral College, the eligibility can be challenged by Congress and ONLY Congress.
Haven’t you at least learned that much from your windmill tilting?
So do Australians. Their word is “Dumbf**ks”.
Oh goodness the blind leading the deaf
Another one which you’d lose. He’s eligible. So is Jindal.
As is Obama.
I guess I didn’t give a hint about what I really meant. Specifically, I’ve been over on YouTube commenting on various copies of the “Shady Past” video. If you say the slightest thing insulting about a birther comment, they drop the topic and start whining about the ebil obots calling them names.
Jerry, the other hand, has absorbed insults and stayed on topic, only once making a general comment about insults being unnecessary. This is what I meant when I said he wasn’t a whiner.
From the complaint:
That is a blatant and demonstrable lie made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also repeats Jerry Collette’s dishonest presentation of the literary agent’s bio that was admitted by the author to be a simple mistake.
KRS 118.176 says:
Lying and submitting “evidence” you know to be false does not meet the requirement for burden of proof. This action will be quickly dismissed. It would deserve sanctions in a more perfect world.
In other words, they are being harmed by not being allowed to harm the defendants.
I think you need to go pick fights you actually have a chance of winning, like trying to steal candy from small children. I estimate you’ll only have about a 40% chance*, but its better than the 0% chance** you have of winning a case against Obama.
* Percentage based on your complete ineptitude.
**Percentage based on your track record thus far.
…cessently.
Why doesn’t he just try to get a TRO against the company tasked with the printing? At least it would cover all the bases. 😉
I want to make a joke, but it would get me banned.
I agree. For that reason, while I don’t like Jerry, I don’t dislike him either. When the FEMA camps open and it’s time to round up the birthers for re-education, I say we let Jerry off easy for good behavior.
You couldn’t write it in Yiddish?
Birthers exemplify a popular standard of insanity: doing the same thing over while expecting a different result.
Has the significance escaped your gifted legal mind, Jerry? Why do courts allow that? Does it not render the 12’th Amendment’s residency rule nugatory?
Your birther case, Jerry, is a pack of hate and deceit, but even a reasonable argument against a candidate’s eligibility faces a judiciary loath to take the choice away from the voters.
Has Todd House proven his constitutional eligibility? I have not only not seen his long form birth certificate, neither have I seen proof that both his parents were US citizens ar the moment Mr. House was born,
So House is an unconstitutional candidate. If he and his wife are both Kentuckians, they cannot both be eligible.
Also, not running under his legal name? Someone inform Orly!!
Jerry, it will be dismissed as meritless. It makes the same dishonest and false claims as all other failed birther suits. Case is closed on this nonsense.
Exactly… Failure to state a claim comes to mind. So desperate to get ‘discovery’ and then what? They will be given the certified information and that’s the end.
Not a very smart approach really and a waste of judicial effort. Ah, the birther lawsuit in a nutshell 🙂
We should demand his academic records, preschool through med school.
But it’s all they have? Why they think the courts will be impressed is beyond me.
I think in a show of good faith the good Doctor House and his running mate would do well to release all of the following documents for both him and Suzanne:
Kindergarten records
Permission to physically examine original birth certificates in the vaults of the states of birth
Similar access for both their parents records or proof of naturalization
College transcripts
Passport records
Proof they never received foreign student loans
Medical school records
Medical board exams scores
At least 10 years of tax returns
What say you Mr. Collette? What say you Mr. Sewell? What say you Dr. House?
I forget to add
Selective service records including originals of registration documents
Social security records including original SS5 applications
Database results for all legal records and transactions involving property purchases and transfers and results for similar names and social security numbers
I may have more but this is a start.
I am sorry but I can’t be so charitable about the man Collette. Who boasts about having a ‘gifted legal mind’ – and when they really have nothing of the kind, it is ludicrous….. but the arrogance of the man is hard to stomach, even if his labours were for a more deserving cause than seeking to overthrow an elected official!
If he appears ineligible to you, feel free to do your own ballot challenge.
I’m entitled to my assessment.
No the VOTERS are entitled to vote for the candidate of their choice, not to be dictated to by a tinpot dictator like you. That is all you are. It is their assessment that matters not yours. Shove your arrogance where the sun don’t shine. You are a disgrace.
Doc, how, under the facts pled, would the defendants dragging out the case beyond the November election not constitute irreparable harm to the plaintiff?
Let’s make it a more obvious violation of the eligibility requirements. Suppose the voters voted in somebody who was clearly under 35 years old. Would you say that the voters have the right to ignore the constitution? I don’t. There are provisions for changing it. If the constitution is amended to change the natural born requirement, or redefine it, then Obama might be eligible.
I don’t know. With Obama, we have three possible ways he might not be an NBC. With Rubio, we only have one. On that one, the courts are likely to say that Wong Kim Ark is the precedent that they will follow, if for no other reason than not wanting the country to have the fallout that would follow from invalidating Obama’s presidency.
Correction:
With Rubio and Obama you have no possible ways, within the realm of reasonable degree of possibility, that either of them are not NBC.
If you choose to be willfully stupid and ignore reality, that is your choice, but your ignorance does not manufacture actual probability in your favor.
Unless, of course, you birthers have won any of the last 150 or so cases? No? Allllllllrighty then.
That’s what Congress’ mandate is for. Did you not attend ANY of your civics classes in grade school?
And that, good sir, is the core of your problem.
It is well established law that the Constitution is not binding on individuals. Citizens are perfectly free to violate the first amendment-Doc can ban whomever he wants from his website and I don’t have to answer the door when Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons knock. I can also violate the second amendment and ban guns from my house.
So, yes, the voters are free to vote for a 22 year old born in Khazakhstan to a French father and a Chinese mother. If such a person wins, then Congress will have to deal with it. That’s why they get paid the big bucks.
Yeah, then why is it that when I let the entire 45th infantry stay in my house, the ACLU sued me for 3rd amendment rights violations?
That wasn’t the ACLU, that was your wife that sued you. For divorce.
He will release a whole lot, and way more than Obama has. I’ll inform Doc, and I hope he’ll post it.
Hmmm…. Lemme go to the surveillance tape….
Okay, now that you mention it, it appears that she sneezed somewhere mid sentence when she said she wanted a divorce, and I heard “ACHOO” as “ACLU”.
More seriously, aren’t there two amendments that are binding on individuals? The 18th (Prohibition) is of course now null and void due to the 21st But the 13th, is still in effect. I can’t own slaves no matter how much I want to.
It staggers me every time that not only did they pass an entire amendment to ban alcohol so that it wouldn’t be repealed, but that they actually went ahead and managed to repeal it anyway, and the ratification of the repeal amendment was almost unanimous.
Jerry, you seem to have a different definition of “obvious” than the rest of us.
Sorry, but neither the voters, nor the EC, nor Congress, nor the judiciary has agreed with you on this.
So, NO, there is no “obvious violation” of NBC requirements here. Just because you don’t personally LIKE Obama and further, you personally do not AGREE with our laws, doesn not change the fact that the laws are in effect as they are and Obama is serving every day as President.
You would do better to simply be more honest with both yourself (admitting that you are starting your premises with biased assumptions, which differ from how things are actually functioning in reality) and with everyone else (acknowledging that these laws DO exist and ARE implemented in this manner and you merely are pushing to CHANGE them).
There is NO real disagreement in our laws that merely being born on US soil is NBC right there. There is NO denying that HI confirms and stands by Obama’s place of birth. The 2-parent nonsense has gone down in flames before the courts, so that “novel” theory doesn’t hold water either.
You can say that you honestly wish to push to change our EXISTING laws to make these NBC requirements more restrictive. But to proclaim something as “obvious” that contradicts reality is either intentionally disingenuous (being dishonest) or represents that you are partially untethered from reality (suffering from a mental health issue). Which is it?
Look Jerry, I *am* following ALL Constitutional requirements in my assessment of Presidential eligibility.
There simply is NO violation here of anything that is actually stated in the Constitution, NOR that is a violation of anything within our body of laws – period.
So the rest of your argument is just a ficticious strawman and you know it. While Scientist is of a different opinion on how the outcome would result, there would at least be a VALID court case and challenge on anyone who ACTUALLY violated a Constitutional requirement, such as the age or residency requirements for President.
Obama’s eligibility is already within the scope and bounds of current laws. Hence, why he is serving as President and there was ZERO legitimate challenge to his inaugeration, after winning the last election. That really, really should *clue* you in right there.
But no…for some sad reason, you emotionally cannot handle this reality and therefore, you’ve built up a wall of fantasy denialism in your own mind to pretend that it didn’t really happen and that it isn’t really true…
If I were you, I’d spend more time reflecting inwards and realize that such denialism is not healthy for you and is severely impacting your precious ability to reason. You are only damaging your own intellectual health by being so dishonest with yourself.
Face it, what YOU want to be law is different from how these laws are currently in effect. Therefore it is YOUR advocacy positions that would require a new Amendment to the Constitution.
Except that his eligibility has already been proven, repeatedly.
But its a concept that a lot dumb, racist trash parading Cracker Jack legal degrees can’t seem to wrap their head around it.
I’m going to violate my vow to Collette. Normally, I don’t get into the mud, but I want to repeat for emphasis: President Obama (roll that around your tongue), who has an Arabic first and middle name, is going to be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow.
Better get used to it. Intrade has Obama at 58%; Rmoney at 39%. FiveThirtyEight has Obama at 80%; Moneybags at 20%. No word from Seamus. He is still tied to the roof.
Oh, and I’m a labor Zionist.
There’s nothing in the Constitution about what voters have to do. They can nominate and vote for whomever they want. However, a President is not elected until Congress says he is, and the Constitution is quite clear what Congress must do should the “president elect fail to qualify.”
Of course the voters aren’t going to elect someone ineligible in any scenario I can imagine, nor would any major party nominate such a person.
It seems to me that you fundamentally distrust the Constitution, and the process it defines. You don’t like how it works, so you are trying to cobble together something you think works better for you. However, what works for nut case conspiracy theorists is generally bad for the rest of us.
I see myself as supporting the Constitution and you as its enemy. And further, and as my Dad would say, you’re way to big for your britches.
We will want unredacted copies of his drivers license, social-security card, birth certificate, selective service registration and passport. 10 years tax returns of course. The birthers have demanded a list of all Obama’s clients when he was a lawyer, so I guess Dr. House will have to provide a list of all his patients too. We’ll want detailed travel records, and he will have to prove that they are complete. Can’t have any unreported trips to ARAB and COMMUNIST countries. We’ll need DNA samples from him, his wife and all 4 parents, as well as access to the microfilm copies of all the birth certificates and the selective service documents.
Oh, you mean everything Obama hasn’t provided.
We’ll see what he puts together. I doubt that Obama will come close to matching it.
A temporary restraining order is to prevent immediate irreparable harm. Your allegation of delay is hypothetical at best and not immediate by any defin8ition. You read “irreparable” but can’t see “immediate.”
Why am I having to explain this to you? Isn’t it obvious?
I mean everything birthers demand.
I’ll publish the story, but the title will be: “Presidential Candidate fails utterly to prove eligibility.”
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/
I must have missed it when all the other presidents and presidential candidates made public their birth certificates, school records, passport records, etc., that birthers demand of Obama, and act like he is hiding something for not disclosing more.
I know a few things were “leaked” here and there, but if you have links to records released by former presidents and presidential candidates, please share.
Jerry, are you really unable to grasp both the concepts of sarcasm, as well as how pointed irony works to shine the light on hypocricy?
Jerry, you claim to be smart, but I guess I need to spell it out to you:
NONE of us really care about any of those silly, immaterial, irrelevant and completely extraneous littany of records that YOU BIRTHERS keep harping on demanding from Obama…and YET demand from NO ONE ELSE.
The whole point of throwing that silly list of records back in your face is simply to point out YOUR blatant hypocricy and double-standards to you, in hopes that somewhere inside you, you might still have a glimmer of a logical conscience that can grasp that you are merely unfairly targeting ONE individual in a way that you DO NOT apply to ANYONE ELSE.
The bottom line here is that your very plantiff candidate is pushing a lawsuit based on making unreasonable demands of records and endless verifications-of-verifications that your VERY CANDIDATE has not and does subject himself to!!!
It is sheer hypocricy at it’s worst. As the old saying goes, “those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. Therefore, your phoney “candidate” has NO basis in making any demands of another candidate that HE himself has not already satisfied and met to the SAME level that you demand of Obama.
Your entire sham crusade here is nothing but an abusive double-standard being played out.
I am curious. When did you discover it took two citizen parents to be an NBC? Prior to the 2008 elections, did you question the eligibility of candidates or the nomination process? Is it your understanding that presidential candidates routinely make public all their personal records, along with either the birth certificates or naturalization records of their parents?
If this is recent, why the change? If not, how did you think the candidates (and their parents) were vetted?
Silly you! Didn’t you notice that one presidential candidate doesn’t look like the others?
Has any birther ever been able to answer that question? Some routinely point to McCain, but that answer is of course insufficient – McCain was never President, he never showed his records to the public, he never showed any of the records birthers demand on top of the COLB to anyone, ever.
I also love their other non-answer “it doesn’t matter, only the current President matters” because it directly contradicts their claim that all laws signed by an ineligible President are null and void – which would be a real problem if GWB, Clinton or Bush sr. were ineligible, and so far birthers have no proof they weren’t.
The most bigoted answer is of course “those were vetted by Congress but Obama wasn’t” – I think that much more than 2/3 of the Congress who allegedly did not vet Obama was around when GWB was vetted. So birthers trust the same people to have vetted GWB but suddenly turned Commumarxist traitors when it was Obama’s turn.
That’s probably the most glaring example of hypocrisy in the entire birther movement, even if you forget about all the ridiculous stuff they make up.
Some are saying that while he was allegedly evangelizing for the Mormons in France, Mitt Romney was making money as a drug mule transporting drugs from France to the UK. So far he has refused to answer questions about his time in France. Don’t you find it suspicious?
No, the amendments were/are not binding on individuals. Statutes are binding on individuals. People selling alcohol during Prohibition were prosecuted under the Volstead Act, not the 18th Amendment. I don’t even think the 18th Amendment was actually necessary, as Congress had the power to ban alcohol without it, just as they ban various drugs today. I believe the drys went for an Amendment simply to make a stronger statement against alcohol than a mere statute.
As for slavery, individuals who enslave others (which still occurs today) are prosecuted under statutes, not the 13th Amendment.
Nothing in the Constitution bars individuals from doing anything including casting their votes for candiidates that Jerry Collette wishes were ineligible or even candidates that actually are ineligible. People write in cartoon characters, fictional persons, dogs or whomever on ballots all the time.
Why hasn’t Glenn Beck denied he raped and murdered a girl? All Glenn Beck has to do is release his criminal record abstract stamped “Subject has clear record to date,” and this can be over tonight. Remember, the burden is on the accused to prove their innocence.
SHOW US YOUR RECORDS BECK!!!
Was Mitt Romney drunk, in violation of Mormon law, when he caused a head-on collision? How long was his brain oxygen deprived? Does this explain his erratic behavior while campaigning? Why didn’t he volunteer for the military? Does he have a
mistresssister wife hidden? His BC has “VOID” all over it. His father was born in Mexico, ostensibly to American citizens? He has a lot of explaining to do.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085412/The-shocking-pictures-Mitt-Romney-died-young-Mormon-missionary.html
Glenn Beck is a Mormon. Arizona SoS Bennett is a Mormon. Rmoney is a Mormon.
Let’s look at “Mormon.”
M: Mitt, money, meretricious
O: Ornery, opposed, obstinate
R: Romney
N: No, nothingness, nonexistence
Coincidence? Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Jerry, Obama could hand you morons the moon, and you would claim it fake and demand more.
OK. Please let us know when he does so I can have document examiners declare them to be forgeries.
Nor will Obama have to match it. Obama has already released more than any other presidential candidate in history by releasing his actual birth certificate four years ago… no other candidate for president had ever done such a thing to prove eligibility. This was not even necessary but he did it anyway. None of the other records you wants has any constitutional value. No other candidate releases such things. So no, you’re not going to see Obama’s either.
There is no possible way that Obama night not be NBC, He’s already proven he is and in fact is the first presidential candidate in US history ever to document this fact by releasing his birth certificate. He was born on US soil and his parents were not foreign diplomats or soldiers. Case closed.
Actually, to be fair we don’t know that he’s not going to see any of it, though if he does it won’t be via the outcome of his ludicrous case.
Very few of us expected Obama to make a special request for a long form and release it last April. He could surprise us again if he and/or his campaign advisors deem it advantageous, though if he hasn’t learned by now that he shouldn’t ever have released a single thing to these vindictive lying troublemakers, he never will.
Did you know you can just buy lab coats?
This DIY lawsuit kit kinda reminds me of that.
This has always been my problem with the moon landing conspiracy theorists who say the moon landing was faked. Hello! There is no moon, people. People then just fall for the trick and say of course it is silly to say the moon landing was faked. Nobody questions the real lie that there is a moon in orbit around the Earth. This is the real conspiracy that goes way back. Once you realize the truth that the moon itself is fake, then you know faking Obama’s birth is as simple as apple pie from a can. People get in a tizzy about whether or not his birth certificate is fake and miss the real conspiracy: Barack Obama does not exist!
Well, one of your three possible ways is based on goofy, far-fetched gossip, one is based on a weird misinterpretation of the law, and the other doesn’t even have any basis. What kind of “gifted legal mind” thinks a little kid can renounce his U.S. citizenship, or have it renounced on his behalf?
No, we don’t.
Way 1: Foreign Birth. Hawaii has said time and time again that Obama was born in the United States. So, unless you have significant evidence to discount this, Obama only has to present the birth certificate that he presented 4 years ago to fact-check to prove this one.
Way 2: Obama somehow mysteriously gave up his citizenship at the age of 6. Impossible. The United States Supreme Court has ruled against this exact scenario over 70 years ago in Perkins v. Elg. They ruled that nobody other than the person could ever give up their citizenship, so no act of adoption would affect the citizenship of Obama. And since the State Department doesn’t allow the renouncing of citizenship of 6-year-olds, that means that Obama has never lost his citizenship. Not to mention that there is absolutely no evidence of the underlying facts. I’d thought that a “gifted legal mind” would actually know this and have researched the appliciable Supreme Court precedents.
Way 3: Obama was born a citizen, but not a “Natural Born Citizen”, again this is impossible. No court in the history of the United States has ruled that you can be born a citizen, but not a Natural Born Citizen, and there are no indication that any court would rule that there was. No district court would ever rule that there was a mysterious 3rd form of citizenship, nor would any appeals court rule that there was. The Supreme Court, if it ever took up the case, would have a 9-0 ruling that anybody born in the United States is a Natural Born Citizen.
There are literally no ways that Obama could not be a Natural Born Citizen.
R: Romney, rapacious, ravenous
Michele Bachmann
M: Muslim
B: Brotherhood
I rest my case.
Eyhay, on’tday illspay ethay eansbay.
Good points.
Interestingly enough, the list of everything Obama hasn’t provided is actually several documents shorter than the list of everything every other President in the history of the USA hasn’t provided.
I wonder why you’re not bright enough to figure out the implications of that, Jerry?
Sigmund Freud, “Civilization and Its Discontents.”
I’m just saying, Dr. C. *says* he has seen the President, and taken his picture personally, but we are supposed to accept such hearsay? And his photographs clearly have been altered or uploaded or something nefarious, so they’re really not reliable, and forget newspapers and television! I’ve seen the media pretend Santa Claus exists “for the kids.” I can do the math. It’s not that hard to see what’s what. But I just want a simple life. I don’t want to be a whistleblower. If people want to believe the United States exists, who am I to tell them otherwise? There are just too many things that don’t actually exist to make a crusade about such things.
I read on the ‘Net that when Rmoney was not busy strapping a dog to a car roof, he was helping David Huckabee torture puppies.
Why hasn’t he denied this?
You got it… And they are being harmed by not being allowed to go onto a fishing expedition. From a legal perspective, Collette’s ‘brain child’ has a few gaping holes.
Fascinating…
You see what I mean? There just are too many of these actual things that do exist to ponder and deal with. No time for make-believe when this kind of thing is going on.
Ignorant people are more likely to overestimate their own abilities, research has shown. So far I have seen little evidence of ‘genius’…
Well, if Sam and Jerry didn’t keep telling us how smart they are, how would we ever know?
I think I’ve brought up this guy I used to know who called himself the Sexual Intellectual because he was a “f-in’ genius”. Everybody else just called him “Notso”. His last name was Bright. He would refer to his failed tryout for Jeopardy as proof of how smart he was; he didn’t realize that this reference– not that he’d failed, but that he used the reference– did indeed constitute proof. Just not the way he’d intended.
This may have already been covered here, but has Dr. House provided unimpeachable proof of his birth in the United States, in the very least equivalent to what President Obama has produced, and unimpeachable proof that his parents were in fact both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth?
One might note that the digital timestamps on the photos do not match the time on Barack Obama’s watch visible under extreme magnification in a couple of the photos.
But, but, but I can explain. My camera is 5 minutes slow, and the President sets his watch 5 minutes fast. Trust me!
Jerry, there is nothing “genius” about what you do.
Now that it’s Ryan, and not Rubio, is anybody suggesting that we do a ballot challenge on Ryan’s eligibility? (Like Sarah Palin and many others, I’d have preferred Allen West, but that’s just because we’re racists, right.)
… nor risen to it. Keep stretching.
Well, duh. If we’re opening up to amendments / redefinitions, then anything and everything “might” be eligible, depending on what qualifications “might” be settled on. A worthless, throwaway statement, Collette.
I am. You have way less information on him than on Obama. In fact, you have none. No birth certificate, no college records, no passport records, no kindergarten records, nothing, zip, nada. He is a complete cipher.
Only if he were born outside the United States this would be a problem. Since we know President Obama was born on US soil, he is a natural born citizen.
Very simple. No need to change the Natural Born requirement.
Of course there are some who, against logic, reason and legal precedent, believe that the NBC requires two citizen parents but the courts have overwhelmingly rejected such follies ever since US v Wong Kim Ark.
It does not take a genius to know this so perhaps you may want to look into this?
They never have an substantive answer. No links, no list of who released what. I think it is despicable. Why didn’t any of the two citizen parent birthers demand proof of the citizenship of other candidates parents? They didn’t and that alone shows how their argument is flawed. Even the “birther bills” didn’t have requirements for documentation regarding the candidates’ parents. Seems like that would be a huge oversight or it is not a requirement. Pretty simple.
True genius requires no reinforcement by those who claim to be such. It’s often a sign of perceived weakness or an inflated self-perspective so commonly found amongst those who are mediocre at best.
So far, I have seen little to nothing that suggests any veracity to these claims.
How? There is only one and that would be foreign birth. You do know that parents cannot abandon a child’s natural born citizen status and that children cannot abandon their citizenship status. So loss of citizenship is a foolish pathway as anyone familiar with the facts would be able to deduce through logic and reason. That the law is clear is also a bit of a bummer. So all you can hope for is that President Obama was somehow born outside US soil and we know for a fact that this is not the case, as evidenced by the information on his long form birth certificate.
Now what?… A fishing expedition? Surely you do realize that the courts require a bit more than ‘let us dig and perhaps we will find something’?
Such foolish attempts.
Not quite true.
We know for absolute truth that he wants to dismantle Medicare.
The GOP has to know that the Dems aren’t going to stop hammering on that. Weird choice.
Of course, I meant information relevant to birthers. Important stuff like his report card in Kindergarten. Did little Paul play nicely with the others or did he grab all the blocks and pretend to be John Galt?
And that he holds so some pretty foolish Ayn Rand inspired ideas… Basically amounting to selfishness as a guide towards ‘morality’ and politics.
Pretty sad… He personally claims Thomas Aquinas as his guiding light now. Divine inspiration.. Hints of the Taliban?
A three-way? Kinky.
Truman, is that you?
Who were not soldiers or diplomats. How does that work exactly?
I’m going with the latter.
Well, Kentucky, ironically enough, ignored the age requirement for a senator when it sent Henry Clay to the US Senate:
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000482
(Clay was) … elected as a Democratic Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of John Adair and served from November 19, 1806, to March 3, 1807, despite being younger than the constitutional age limit of thirty years …
Source: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000482
Pronounciation? I want to put that in my regular vocabulary.
And that was at a time when most of the “Founders and Framers” were still alive and many were in Congress. And not a peep. There was also a House member around that time who was too young.
The conclusion: Despite what the birthers will tell you, it does not appear that the “Founders and Framers” considered the eligibility criteria to be a major deal. It may be that they felt the voters could override them in the case of an outstanding candidate.
сумасше’ший
It is pronounced on this page:
What is interesting is when I searched Google, one of the results was the Wictionary entry for “batshit” although the Russian word wasn’t on the page when I looked.
Used in a translated example: “Only two of the busy men of our house did not drink, me and my crazy uncle.”
My 40-year-old college recollection is that the literal meaning is someone who has staggered off his mind. I’m still not 100% sure what the root verb is (шататься?). The origin may be Turkish.
My live-in Russophone endorses your pronunciation. I asked her about it, right away she comes back with сумасше’ший ’омa…nuthouse. I’m not going into cases, though.
To follow up on the point about Henry Clay: He was almost 5 months short of the required 30 years when he went to the Senate. In fact, since he served only an interim term, he was still 29 when he left the Senate (to return later, of course.)
Now birthers make a big deal of claiming Obama was born in Kenya. I don’t see them asserting that he didn’t come to the US as a tiny baby. So there is no practical [difference] between an Obama born in Hawaii and an Obama born in Kenya but brought to the US a few days or weeks later. Nothing in that initial foreign experience would have created any harmful effect that the [Framers] were seeking to prevent with the natural born provision. So trying to oust Obama for an alleged foreign birth is seeking to apply a technicality that makes no real difference.
Also, although I’m totally convinced that he was born in Hawaii, I think there are a couple of legal theories that could apply for him to be a natural born US citizen even if born in Kenya under the circumstances that birthers allege. So courts, or the Congress, could rule the birth certificate issue irrelevant.
As for his losing citizenship in Indonesia through [stepfather] adoption, it’s been pointed out again and again to birthers that that couldn’t possibly happen under the law, so I would kinda expect a gifted legal mind to grasp that.
As well as the two citizen-parent theory that surely Mr. Collette must acknowledge is going nowhere.
I agree. The framers were totally silent on what they intended about a US citizen flying to Kenya to give birth and then flying right back. I have never seen any discussion in their writings about that. I think they were big picture thinkers, not legal pettifoggers.
Moreover, the whole natural born thing was designed to prevent a junior member of a European royal family from becoming President. I am not convinced it was ever intended to be applied to ordinary immigrants. But, that’s how it has been read.
The better question is: Do individuals have standing to challenge the nomination or election?
Thank you so much Doc! 🙂
I updated my comment with a link to an audio pronunciation. However, what I wrote before works.
A synonym is безумный, literally “without a mind,” pronounced byezOOMny.
Thinking back to my Russian class, I think it equipped me with what to say to someone who ran into my car, more than anything else.
I’m waiting for when the members of the religious right realize that they now are being asked to vote for a ticket comprised of a Mormon and a Roman Catholic.
ROTFL…
Why Jerry? Have YOU seen Ryan’s “long form birth certificate” and all the other sets of documentation that you claim you must have in order to be “certain” that a candidate is “satisfactory” as NBC to you???
I mean, you make these demands of Obama…and claim you felt somewhat “similar” towards Rubio…
…So where are YOU on demanding all this stuff from Ryan, then? Hmmmm???
You forget, claiming that there is some “Constitutional Concern” to these “show me” demands (instead of mere pure partisan hypocricy and bigotry) is the BIRTHER position.
Us anti-Birthers don’t share your silly littany of concerns (nor do we buy your cover story for why you claim to demand them…from ONLY Obama, no less).
So, if you were really consistent and sincere in your principles and your beliefs, you would be making these demands OF Ryan yourself…
…Yet your post seems to indicate otherwise, as if you are almost immediately “satisfied” by Ryan’s eligibility, merely from him showing up to join the ticket and nothing more…
Hmmm…what could possibly be different between Ryan vs. Rubio or Obama which somehow puts you instantly “at ease”…instead of “concerned….???
I only write to point out that ther4e is no evidence that Pres. Obama was adopted in Indonesia, or obtained Indonesian citizenship.
You know what evidence is, Jerry, don’t you?
Why don’t you cite to the admissible evidence upon which you are going to rely in proving that the President is an Indonesian citizen.
Well, there you go, see? A reasonable answer to an unreasonable question. That’s all any birther is asking for. I’m sure you of course did all the standard tests for impersonators, and verified his security tattoo. As long as you checked those, I don’t see that mismatched time stamps amount to anything worth mentioning. You did test of course for aerosolized DNA samples to compare against his DNA-stamped birth certicate, right? If not, that could be a real sticking point unfortunately.
For some of you birthers, that was the entire motivation of allegedly backing Allen West (or Herman Cain).
I’ve read many comments on birther sites who claimed West/Cain would be “a nightmare for the Democrats”. And why? Because those people think that having a black candidate would guarantee them at least half of the black vote (thereby inferring that blacks vote almost exclusively on the colour of the candidate, and that is a racist allegation).
And also because of a combination of birthers’ strange reverse projection “anyone who criticizes Obama is called a racist” (which of course is absurd) and “if a black guy says it, it’s not racist” (which is a common misconception predominant among white racists, just like new Nazis love to point to radical Jews happening to share one or two of their ideas, as if that magically made their anti-Semitic viewpoints more acceptable).
So yes, birthers believed West/Cain would be their ideal candidate simply because he would “take away a lot of the black vote from Obama” and because he “can criticize Obama all he wants without being labelled a racist”, both arguments being based on false premises and racist motivations.
If you think any birther would have been able to stomach West or Cain actually becoming President, better think again. They didn’t think that far in their “anyone but Obama” mentality.
I always find the excuse “I’m not a racist because I like XXX [who happens to be black or a jew etc]” totally disingenuous and more often than not, evidence of racism.
In this case using one’s support of Allan West or Keyes as a shield to prove that one is not a racist is total dung.
Jerry Collette is, in that respect, no different from all the other racist birthers.
Exactly. When I read that, the thought that went through my head was ‘I’m not a racist, I just like this one black guy because he’s as hateful towards my imagined enemies (blacks) as I am’ – Utterly reprehensible.
Right…To me, those sort of statements are grating and sound like Trumps’ “I get along well with the Blacks” and those who say “I can’t be racist, I have a black friend.” Racists can like individuals who are considered minorities. The evidence in their racism shows up in who/what they don’t like and their actions towards them.
It is analogous to a police officer from Mayonaise, MN, who when accused of racism, says he has many black/hispanic friends on the force. That is all true, but his actions are far more telling. 84% of the people he arrested are minorities. In 92% of all his traffic stops, the driver is a minority. Given that only 7% of Mayonaise’s population are black/hispanic, it is pretty clear the officer has a problem.
It is the same with birthers. I do not think they are racist for disagreeing with the president. I think they are entirely capable of supporting a minority candidate for the presidency. The tell is in their actions. Have they demanded to see the birth certificates of other presidents/candidates? Have they demanded the academic records of other presidents/candidates? Have they demanded the passport records of other presidents/candidates? A big fat “NO”.
Let’s see, the first 43 US presidents were white, and not one of those proud, God-fearing, red-blooded patriots challenged them as ineligible or claimed they had not been vetted.
Why is it so different for Obama?
Except for the Irish guy, Chester A. Arthur. At a time when Irish were persona non grata.
Jerry: Instead of spending all of your spare time on harassing President Obama, I recommend having an affair with a shiksa, like I did. The French are right. Take a lesson from them.
Also, why aren’t you equally concerned about Glenn Beck, and his rape and murder?
Oh, and eat your heart out.
OK, if you have any plaintiffs, let me know what state they want to bring the case in, and I’ll design a form.
Rubio has publicly stated that he was born of non citizen parents. Ryan has not. (Neither has Allen West.)
Get a life.
They were aliens. From Mars, maybe?
I didn’t do volunteer work on Richard Boddie’s presidential and senate campaigns because he was black. I worked on them because I thought he was the best candidate for the job.
I didn’t volunteer to help the Lakotah people reclaim their sovereignty because they were of a different race. I did it because they were wronged.
I didn’t not support Herman Cain because he was black. I didn’t consider him competent enough.
Obama has stated publically that he was born in Hawaii. Moreover, he has provided 2 birth certificates that prove that. But that isn’t good enough for you. Yet public statements from Ryan and West suffice for you.
You are prejudiced (note: not the same as racist) if you rely on public statements from Ryan and West, yet refuse to do so with Obama. There is no other interpretation of your actions.
There is only one state one could bring a suit against House in, since he is only a candidate in one state. I do not know a soul in Kentucky. I only was there once in my entire life, and only because the Cinncinati airpport happens to be across the river.
A public statement admitting a problem is very different than a public statement saying somebody doesn’t have one.
The suggestion (not mine) was to bring a ballot challenge against Ryan.
So, Jerry, you have ducked the question. Yet again. What is your evidence that the President is Indonesian? Identify the specific evixdence and how it is admissible. You tell us you know about the law, so this should be easy.
You must not have read my comments. I consider ALL ballot challenges illegitimate. I believe the VOTERS should determine who they want without interference from paralegals. Should I say that again, or did you get that?
What problem? You have a problem, I think…..
Obama does not have any problem. You do. Obama has proven his eligibility with irrefuted official documentation. No other candidate in history has done such a thing. You’re e one with the problem,
So why are you accepting tacitly that Ryan’s parents were both citizens? Why are you giving him a pass on this all-important question?
If any birther wants to be taken seriously, he has to refuse any public statement as “sufficient”, regardless of its contents.
In fact, even if Obama said “I was born in Kenya”, it wouldn’t be enough to disqualify him (since the legal documents still say otherwise).
You are still too dense to realize that you’re applying a double standard. Are you willing to let a Canadian-born Ryan get away with it just because no-one bothered to doubt what he says? Isn’t this what birthers initially claimed about Obama? That he was foreign-born and simply “slipped through” because no-one asked the right questions?
You may have forgotten that since the movement has since morphed into “the entire world is part of the conspiracy, except me and a handful of people I trust”.
Are you really going to take that chance? You would not if you actually meant what you said (y’know, “care about the Constitution” and stuff). The fact you’re giving some people a free pass (because they’re white, or Republican, or both) shatters your entire facade of “concerned citizen”.
And as much as I commend you for discussing with anti-birthers in a civilized fashion in this forum, that doesn’t mean *I* will give *you* a free pass for being a hypocrit.
Amid the comments calling Mr. Collette a racist, please note the absence of one from me. I don’t know. However, I am a racist and I know that doing the things Jerry describes from his history doesn’t mean he’s not a racist too. I don’t know where Jerry was raised, but if it was in the South, it would be remarkable if he were not racist.
The point is that Jerry looked at the facts and got the answer horribly wrong, contrary to any rational mode of thinking. Why is that? One has a limited number of possible answers, the two most plausible are bias and mental defect. If it’s bias that could be any number of things, racism being one.
It’s still being gathered. We might drop that allegation as the case proceeds.
Somebody, I thought it was you, suggested doing a ballot challenge against Ryan.
So, Jerry, you have ducked the question.Yet again.
I have already stated my willingness to help with a ballot challenge on him. Do you want to be a plaintiff?
I can see why such gossip would be included in a smear campaign, but why include that Indonesian goofiness in a legal proceeding when it’s clear as day that the United States protects the citizenship of its little children from such nonsense?
Aren’t you supposed to investigate the facts BEFORE you make your allegations?
I would think that a truly Gifted Legal Mind wouldn’t require more than 15 minutes to verify that it was impossible for Obama lose his U.S. citizenship while he was Indonesia.
Who is “we”? This isn’t your case, but House’s. Does the Kentucky Bar know that a Florida paralegal is providing legal advice in Kentucky?
No. I would never suggest such a thing, as ALL ballot challenges are completely illegitimate, on legal and moral grounds. What I am asking is why you accept Ryan’s bona fides at face value, yet do not accept Obama’s despite the many pieces of clear evidence?
Can you answer my question, please.? Should I repeat it?
Here goes:
Why do you accept Ryan’s bona fides at face value, yet do not accept Obama’s despite the many pieces of clear evidence?
Note: I am not asking about lawsuits, simply why you believe something. Is that clear Your Giftedness?
I see, a fishing expedition with no evidence. Good work my friend…
Hilarious… And yet you make up Indonesian adoption?
Poor Jerry, consistency is not his strongest suit. So what is?
So Dr. House was lying when he made the allegation in the complaint. I continue to be baffled why this doesn’t trouble you. Throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks is reprehensible behavior.
Is Jerry still proceeding from the foolish two citizen parents requirements? If not, there are really no problems with President Obama’s eligibility beyond lack of evidence that he was somehow not born in the US or that he lost his citizenship.
Is that the extent of Jerry’s ‘arguments’? This is just about a fishing expedition, is it not Jerry.
No wonder you failed and will continue to do so.
It has been clear from the start that Jerry hasn’t been acting responsibly.
There is no universally accepted definition of racism because like pornography it depends on a lot of other definitions and assumptions.
Still, I have yet to hear an explanation from Collette on why he blindly assumes everything is a-ok with white politicians, but somehow he deeply suspects Obama of all kinds of wrongdoings.
His words to the effect that he supported this and that person of color don’t hold much water to me, because (a) “some of my best friends are…” and (b) ideology may trump race in individual cases, but the racist’s worldview remain the same.
Also, bizarrely, racists make strange amalgalms; in the early 1900s, French racists hated Jews, Protestants and Freemasons the same, but weren’t against admitting African blacks from French colonies into the Officer Corps in the Army. Go figure. I suppose one might feel sympathy for Native Americans and mistrust towards American Blacks? Who knows?
Bottom line: if Collette’s dislike of Obama is purely political, by all means, let him campaign against his reelection to the hilt; there’s plenty of ammunition for it.
OTOH, Collette believing AND ACTING in and on weird, unprecedented theories about Obama’s legitimacy, when presumably he remained totally silent when your SCOTUS handed a dubious electoral victory to Bush by fiat, now that is IMHO race-driven.
I’m not.
There’s an explanation about Jerry Collette, Orly Taitz and the rest of their coterie:
The time has come
The walrus said
To speak of many things
Of shoes, of ships, of sealing wax
Of cabbages and kings.
And why the sea is boiling hot
And whether pigs have wings.
There is no question that Collette and all the birthers are biased against Obama, in that they hold him to a standard that they don’t apply to any other candidate or office holder-namely that he must show documents and the others don’t, and even when the documents are shown, they are insufficient. Whether the bias is racial, ideological, partisan or some mix, is rather immaterial. Collette is not playing fair and not upholding a uniform standard. He is prejudiced, End of story.
Yes, but it’s the Jerry’s DIY plan and needs no facts, just enough smear to get discovery… Of course, the courts will never allow such a foolish case to move forward.
Indeed. I called him on it in an active thread and he totally ignored me.
Better and more resourced people than you have been trying to ‘gather’ that ‘evidence’ for THREE YEARS now.
You think you are going to succeed why?
Why can’t you answer the question?
And no, I wouldn’t want to be a plaintiff because, as has been proven, your legal theory of two-citizen parentage is disproven hogwash. You have zero support for this ludicrous claim.
🙂
It worked sooo well for Allen Keys against Obama in the 2004 Senate race. They seem to forget about that.
Ii can’t answer every question on these blogs, nor can I challenge every candidate’s eligibility. Obama’s eligibility is in serious question. Rubio’s certainly is. Others, while not 100%, do not seem so likely to be a problem.
No, it’s not. You sure haven’t presented any serious question of it. Never mind that the allegation that President Obama was born outside the United States has no factual basis; and that the Vattel goofiness has been wholly discredited– when you bring up that Indonesian nonsense, you’re betraying that your intentions aren’t to raise serious judicial matters, but to put on a sideshow act.
No, I think you are mixed up. It’s your mental state that is in serious question.
Not by any reasonable, or legal standard. But if you believe in the two citizen parents standard why insist on something as foolish as indonesian adoption?
Surely you have faith in your conviction? Or do you realize that the courts have totally rejected your position?
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
Not according to Justice O’Connor, or the many courts who have visited this. No, this is just you trying to swindle the uninformed…nothing more. All that you’ve proven here is your dishonesty…and why lawyers get a bad name.
Answer mine. Stop running and answer.
No, Obama’s eligibility is not under “serious question,” it is under no question at all because alone among all presidential candidates Obama is the only one to have documented his natural born citizenship by releasing his actual long form birth certificate. The matter is closed.
Jerry admitted earlier today that after nearly 4 years of searching, and 100+ cases, he had no evidence that the President was an Indonesian citizen. Jerry, you alleged the President was Indonesian. You had no evidence. In my book, that’s a lie. The only reason you are fussing as to the President’s loyalties to Indonesia, and not Rep. Ryan’s loyalties to Ireland, is racism. Plain and simple.
Instead of answering the ‘why don’t you answer’ question on this blog with a platitude that you can’t answer every question on this blog, why don’t you just answer the original question?
Please don’t answer that question – it is more rhetorical than anything – just answer the question that was put to you in the first place.
‘I don’t have time’ is an excuse, not a reason, and it is a particularly disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, excuse at that.
If you can take the time to answer the ‘why don’t you answer’ question, then you have the time to answer the actual question.
Another person who is not at all like Jerry Collette:
http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/lawsuit-claims-black-sacker-ban-from-big-sandy-grocery-store/article_211e8217-acdf-5489-8915-8f6cc7900470.html
He is not racist, merely “exercising his religious freedom and the rights he has been given.”
Since religion has been (ab)used to excuse/justify much worse things in history, stuff like that doesn’t really surprise me.
Why don’t you challenge him yourself? I mean, after 130+ birther cases against Obama (and anyone involved with getting him on the ballot), wouldn’t challenging a white Republican candidate (and/or his running mate) be a fresh new approach? Y’know, compared to doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results?
You might even find yourself one of those ebil librull judges who agrees with you and disqualifies Mittens/Ryan. It would be a win-win situation – you get the eligibility issue on the front pages of the papers *and* you would get yourself precedent for going against Obama as well.
But instead you go down roads you know will lead nowhere. Which begs the question: do you, like most other birthers going to court, *intend* to lose? Is this just one giant propaganda stunt? I mean, you’d lose your precious “all the liberal judges cover up for Obama” when they throw out your challenges against a white GOP candidate. You’ll be left with the fringe among the fringe – those who believe the GOP is “in on it” as well. But that won’t get you anywhere with the general public, would it? That hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of swinging the elections – pandering only to those who would never vote Obama nor Romney anyway.
So again, non-actions speak louder than actions here…
As I understand it, Jerry’s “excuse” for not challenging Ryan is that he “doesn’t have the time to develop a case”. But his case against Obama is simply the unfounded assertion of nonsense. So, let me help Jerry develop his “case” against Ryan. Paul Ryan was born in Dublin, Ireland. He has shown no birth certificate to dispute that. If he does, we will call it a forgery.
There, Jerry now has an equally good case against Ryan as he does against Obama (better in fact). So, his failure to file against Ryan in the next 3 days now cannot be atttributed to lack of time and can only be due to prejudice on Jerry’s part.
When I check in, I only do a quick scan of the new stuff. I don’t have the time to scroll back and answer all the unanswered ones, and some of them would take a long time to answer. Jumping in and answering something quickly at the end is much faster.
If these answers are so important so somebody that they want to hire me for my time, that’s another story. Otherwise, please accept what you get with gratitude.
I don’t even have the time to do my case that’s been ordered transferred to Tallahassee. I might refile it later, there. We’ll see.
You have provided great entertainment, and for that I am grateful. Let us know how it works out. Hysterical laughter is better than Xanax.
If you really believe that, feel free to use the DIY kit and challenge him yourself. Let me know what state you want to file it in, and I’ll modify the form.
It’s called ‘irony.’ Look into it.
As long as it has a 5X money back guarantee…if I lose you pay. 10X if it doesn’t get to discovery. 20X if it doesn’t get past standing. I’m sure you’re more than willing to back up your gifted legal mind with cold hard cash, aren’t you Jerry?
Here’s more in the religion BS department:
Pharmacist denies meds because religion –
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/local/central/pharmacist-denies-meds-because-religion
Virginia pharmacy had plenty of moral convictions, few clients –
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/12/AR2010041204107.html
Here’s my favorite schmuck: Serpent-handling pastor dies from rattlesnake bite –
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/serpent-handling-pastor-profiled-earlier-in-washington-post-dies-from-rattlesnake-bite/2012/05/29/gJQAJef5zU_story.html
Good grief!
As the story mentions, all that bigot had to do to avoid getting banned from the store in the first place, was to simply request to bag his own groceries, instead of having to make a racist statement out of it…
…and claiming it under “religious freedom”…what a pathetic abuse of the term.
Thanks for sharing those links. Well worth the read. The stories speak for themselves…
It’s free. Just download it.
Jerry does not have a sense of humor.
You probably should just give up on Obama, as you are just wasting your time anyway on meritless cases. You might as well start fresh with a whole new case, a whole new person. Get in on the ground floor and all…
Let’s see, aren’t there filing fees, etc? But, I guess you’re probably right Jerry…you get what you pay for. =))
Really? Well, I’m still waiting for you to answer this one. Why does the Complaint allege that Barack Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro? You know for a fact that there is no evidence that Obama was ever adopted by his stepfather, and your Gifted Legal Mind surely should know that even if there had been an adoption it would have had no effect whatsoever on Obama’s citizenship. Indeed, there was nothing Obama’s parents could have done to affect his citizenship and he was too young to renounce his citizenship. So why do you choose to perpetuate a long-debunked myth?
In fact, why is a paralegal knowingly encouraging laymen to lie to a Court? Isn’t than an offense of some kind?
Why is a paralegal promoting the filing of lawsuits? Why does a paralegal refer to a case someone else filed in another state as “our case”?
I found the following: “However, many states, including Florida, have enacted laws or bar rules which require any person referring to themself as a paralegal to be working under the supervision a licensed attorney.[8] This would disqualify those individuals working as “independent paralegals” from using the title “paralegal”.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralegal
Doesn’t Jerry live in Florida?
We’ll see. So far your own case has been quite a disaster has it not 🙂
Gratitude for getting free garbage? Why? As to hiring you for your time. Why pay for something that appears to be legally flawed and based on known untruths?
Come on Jerry.
You don’t get it. you just answered him with why you can’t answer a question. See the irony? Instead of constantly posting that you can’t answer this question or that, just post the answer to the question in the first place.
Hint: We know why you don’t You have nothing with which to answer since your “case” is phony.
Not until you pay me for reading it, then for all my additional time and expenses, then a *considerable* sum as payment for damages to my reputation and livelihood. I won’t have much of a career ahead of me after that, so this sum will have to last me the rest of my life, and I’m in my prime.
Jerry is practicing law without a license, and encouraging someone to file a frivolous lawsuit and then perjure himself.
Beautiful. As my mother would say, עליה השלום, he should see a doctor.
Or Kennedy’s loyalties to Ireland.
OT, but apropos: The owner of the studio I hang out at, is also named Reilly. Her ancestors came here during the Great Famine, which was exacerbated by the British. So much for superior Anglo-Saxon culture.
I also had a fling with her, but that’s another story.
According to The Steady Drip, two more DIY-style lawsuits are in the pipeline to be filed, in Washington and Louisiana.
Maybe we need to make a DIY DEFENSE KIT. I am not a lawyer or a paralegal, so I don’t think I should offer advice. Any real attorney is welcome to submit an article for publication here. Title: “DIY v. DIY?”
It will be interesting to see if the Complaints include the bogus Indonesian citizenship allegation.
You may not be a lawyer or paralegal, but at least you don’t have the disability some of our visiting lawyers and paralegals have of seeing the law not as it is, but as they would have it.
Not even sure that is necessary. After all, the DIY Birther kit is fatally flawed all on its own.
A Defense Kit does nothing to stop crazy people from filing frivolous actions in the first place.
Once a frivolous action is filed, it wastes time and taxpayer money having to be addressed by the courts, regardless.
As the DIY Birther kit has no basis in real argument or injury in the first place, it has no chance of succeeding and therefore doesn’t really need much help in failing and ending up being tossed out of court, early on in the legal process, all on its own.
Already done in Georgia…it’s called the “Empty Chair”. Costs are the same. 😀
You are being kind. It doesn’t come close to stating a real cause of action and I don’t think it gets a single point of law correct. Jerry has been shown that a negligence claim requires actual damages, not nominal damages, and that the Constitution itself cannot be the basis of a neglience per se action. He can’t refute such facts but he still continues to make such frivolous claims. He tries to make up a new right under the Consitution unsupported by any precedent at all, which, of course, has zero chance of success. But he also doesn’t understand that even if such right were recognized, it doesn’t mean he could sue anyone for violating it. Apparently Jerry doesn’t know that the Consitution imposes no duties on private persons and such persons cannot be the subjects of a suit for breach of the Constitution in tort or otherwise. He also doesn’t know that suits against public officials are generally prohibited by sovereign immunity and can only proceed in very narrow circumnstances. I could go on and on, but what is really insulting is the claim that they are looking for an honest judge when their complaint is so dishonest as it ignores unrefutable law the has been pointed out to them. He also dishonestly mischaractorizes every citizenship case he cites in his brief. For such dishonest and clearly legally ignorant people to question the integrity of our legal system is an insult to all of us in this profession.
Jerry also doesn’t seem to understand that it seems likely that he is engaging in unauthorized practice of law in mulitple jurisdictions. It is one thing to prepare generic forms with prominent disclaimers on them. While Jerry’s not-so- prominent disclaimers may not even be sufficient if all he was doing was distributing generic forms, he goes way beyond generic forms as he is interpreting case law, the Constitution, tort law, making legal arguments, etc. Seems like very dangerous ground to me.
Finally, I should add that I have know some judges and can say they had little patience to re-try a case already rejected by another court. I can think of nothing that would piss them off more than finding the same case was being shopped from court to court looking for an honest judge. I would not want to be in the plaintiff’s shoes when such facts comes to light.
It seems that was its intended purpose.
I’ve been browsing through Louisiana’s election laws, and found this little gem:
RS 18:1463 C.(1) No person shall cause to be distributed, or transmitted, any oral, visual, or written material containing any statement which he knows or should be reasonably expected to know makes a false statement about a candidate for election in a primary or general election or about a proposition to be submitted to the voters.
http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=81432
I didn’t know you could legislate lying out of politics, especially in Louisiana.
Does this count??? I did it the other day.
http://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/do-it-yourself.pdf
If it works, it actually removes the Birther from circulation for quite a while.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I think it my civic duty to notify defense counsel in any future DIY cases of the nature of the suit being filed and to point them to the DIY page and the previous cases.
BRAVO!!!
“WHEREFORE, based on the principles of English Common Law relating to lunatics”…
Yes, that is the starting point I’d like to see too… I personally am of the belief that our existing laws simply allow too many to roam free, who are in need of serious mental help and treatment. Birtherism (from the “true believer” set) totally comes across as a cancerous mental illness to me. It gets a hold of susceptible minds and causes them to rot into true madness.
I suggest an attractive, wooden chair, style typical of a courtroom in the Southern US:
http://www.kpetersen.com/jurychairs.htm
Along with a simple document frame, standard letter size:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=document+frame
And, just for completeness sake, some assistance in acquiring vital records:
http://vitalrec.com/
Or perhaps a partnership with vitalchek.com if we want to go commercial.
Since it’s a DIY kit, all that’s needed are the links. And perhaps some shampoo-bottle level directions. It should be self-explanatory, but one never knows. If some poor, unfamiliar soul is sued, they might think it cause for alarm, until thy realize it’s only birfers.
Isn’t there an old saying “the man who is his own attorney has a fool for a client”?
For the next rev of the DIY kit, I give you reason number four: New PHD Dissertation Proves Hawai’i is not actually part of United States of America
The DIY vs DIY should be a complaint filed against Mr Collette with the appropriate authorities to put him out of business.
Birthers Challenge Hawaii to Produce Statehood Certificate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/birthers-challenge-hawaii_b_802149.html
Jerry says that he has a constitutional right not to be governed by an ineligible president. I say that I have a right to be governed by an eligible president, and that Jerry Collette is attempting to infringe on my rights with his lawsuit. So using Jerry’s view of rights and standing, I could go into federal court and attempt to get a restraining order preventing him from filing suits or assisting others in filing suits and obtain money damages for the mental anguish suffered from reading his tortuous logic.
However, I’m ethical and wouldn’t bring a frivolous lawsuit.
And I have a saying too….the man who takes legal advice from a paralegal is a bigger fool than the man who is his own attorney.
Gifted legal mind my dupa. He’s just another wanna be hack like that other birther paralegal with delusions of being remotely capable of making a coherent legal argument. People who have to go out of their way to tell you how brilliant they are, are doing so because their work product leaves you with the opposite impression.
Good points. Well said! I share your positions on this.
Kentucky DIY lawsuit gets local coverage:
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120822/NEWS01/308220104/Doctor-sues-President-Barack-Obama-removed-from-Kentucky-ballot
My favorite part of the case is that it will be a Judge Wingate who will get to dismiss these wingnuts…
Interesting comments over there. Karchner and Marius Apuzzius are over there Vattelating. Sam’s pining for a military dictatorship, and declaring victory for the birthers, of course. Somebody’s saying that President Obama’s really two years older than he says, and can’t be a citizen because Hawaii wasn’t a state then. This looks like fun.
The Birthers are so desperate for attention that any article about them brings out many in the Cult of Crazy in droves….quite sad…