It’s been 9 days now since Terry Lakin’s September 2 hearing hearing before a military judge Lind, and still not a word on the American Patriot Foundation web site about the results of the hearing, nor the text of the judge’s opinion. This is noted by military attorney Phil Cave at the Military Law and Justice web site, along with some insightful commentary on the affair.
I guess it serves the APF better to allow the rumor mill to create its own misinformation than to do it themselves.
Here, in pieces, are Judge Lind’s written decisions:
I did hear from Hemenway. All I know is that an appeal will filed. Nothing more.
They’ll let him walk. Obviously they won’t show anything, or allow discovery, so the whole thing is pointless.
Who are “they”?
“They’ll let him walk”
Ft. Leavenworth is much too far for walking!
.
where do birthers get their info? No john and J this is not an OMG moment, Lakin is toast. Gen Petraeus and millions of our soldiers are following their orders and serving their country with pride. why can’t Lakin do the same?
“…allow discovery”
.
what’s strange is that discovery would only confirm Obama’s Hawaiian birth, birthers don’t really want discovery as that would destroy their conspiracy. birthers are wierd!
The aliens!
I am really looking forward to the howls of anguish when the birthers finally get their discovery and prove that the president was born in Hawaii. 😉 It wont stop them, of course, but it should be good for one hell of a laugh…
They will allow any discovery that can show that Lakin did not commit the crimes of which he has been accused.
Of course, since he said himself that he was inviting his court martial, the discovery phase may be quite short.
As to the claim that President Obama made me do it, it has no relevance to Lakin’s case.
Lakin runs the risk of jail time, loss of salary, and loss of his pension. All because he believed that he could ignore the orders of his direct superiors because Lakin believed that President Obama was not eligible…
What a waste of a career.
I’ll take that bet- How much?
Just remember the following:
“Let me remind you, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country, if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge David O. Carter, Federal District Court of California.
If Judge Lind’s decision is correct that the eligiblity of Obama as Commander In Chief does not matter in regards to military orders that solider must follow, then how is Obama’s questional eligiblity to be the Commander In Cheif BAD for the country? If the De Facto Officer Doctrine supposely protects Obama, how can Obama’s inegibility to be Commander In Chief be BAD for the country.
You should also know that Judge Lind’s reference to Baker Vs. Carr on the political question doctrine merely says that the court SHOULD NOT intervene in a political question not that it SHALL NOT or MUST NOT leading to the conclusion that isn’t that Judge Lind CAN”T grant discovery but the fact that she WON”T grant discovery. This is a HUGE difference.
David O. Carter was a former marine and knew that it was indeed very BAD that Obama’s eligibility to be Command In Chief be in doubt. Unfortunately, Judge Carter was powerless to remedy the situation but I still believe that Judge Carter was coersed or otherwise threatened to dismiss the case when is looked like the case was actually going forward. Judge Carter made the following statement in hearing when it was he gung ho about resolving this great issue:
“Let me remind you, it’s not good for the country. It’s not good for the country, if he is qualified to be POTUS, that these rumors swirl. And if he is not, it’s not good for the country that he is Commander In Chief.” – Judge David O. Carter, Federal District Court of California.
I see this one of the most powerful of all statements made by a judge regarding the doubt of Obama’s elgibility thus far.
Lakin is not asking for the removal of Obama as the POTUS.
John has posted this same nonsense as “John” and “James” on http://court-martial-ucmj.com/lakin-2/should-ltc-lakin-be-embarrassed/ . Now some of us have had to change handles on certain sites because our normal one was already taken. But what’s the use of having two handles on the same sites except to make people believe that “you’re not alone”?
John says:” I see this one of the most powerful of all statements made by a judge regarding the doubt of Obama’s elgibility thus far.”
But John blithely skips over Judge Carters actual ruling- and this well put statement:
I love how John and the Birthers loved Carter when they made a statement they interpret as supporting their position, but then accuse him of being coerced when he makes a clear decision opposed to their position.
And this is why Obama shouldn’t give Birthers a thing- anything given is twisted and perverted, anything that appears against them is a product of corruption or intimidation
Judge Carter only said what John quoted when trying to persuade HBH Orly Taitz (WBUH) to properly serve Obama, since she had failed to do so and refused to do it over, at first that is. In the end, Orly was persuaded to go to a separate room with the opposing attorney to formulate the serving.
It was not even dicta, it was more like a snark. Judges do say things like “It is possible for a woman to read The Life of Disraeli without contemplating marriage with a man younger than herself.” and “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
I must be tone-deaf because in no way do I see any doubt expressed about Obama’s eligibility there.
If I said, “it is not good for the country if Obama is a drug addict,” it is a statement of fact, pretty indisputable, not an assertion that he is in fact so.
J Carter was correct in pointing out the importance of the issue, then issuing a ruling that dispels any doubts.
To interpret it the way you do is entirely delusional. Not a surprise, of course.
The article is about American Patriot Foundation web site not showing anything.
Translation “American Patriot Foundation will let him walk. Obviously American Patriot Foundation won’t show anything, …, so the whole thing is pointless.”
Interesting … Don’t worry American Patriot Foundation only say in his quilt or innocence is in defending him. It issue is still whether or not Lakin disobeyed his orders.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/22/the-strange-case-of-judge-david-o-carter/
The strange case of Judge David O. Carter
The Post and E-Fail is such a monumental heap of lies and disinformation. Any respectable person would be embarrassed to quote it as a source. Just what did happen to John Charlton?
Ah, yes, the magic law clerk.
In the real world, first year associates in Seattle don’t have much to do with senior partners in Washington DC.
This has to be one of the more nonsensical conspiracy theories. It demonstrates only that birthers have no legal experience or even a grasp on reality!
They most certainly will not let this unpatriotic fool walk, unless you call several years at Leavenworth for refusing to obey orders “walking.”
First, it’s “coerced,” not “coersed.”
Second, there is not one speck of evidence that Judge Carter was coerced, threatened, bribed, or influenced by anything but the law in rendering his decision.
Third, the President was born in Hawaii. That makes him natural born, and thus eligible for the Presidency.
Fourth, taking Judge Carter’s words so much out of context is disgraceful. Have you no shame?
Fifth, Lakin’s motives are not relevant. What matters is that he tried to use a clear case of failure to obey orders to attempt to undermine the office of the Presidency. He is now going to have to face the consequences of his own folly.
Here endeth the lesson.
Is there any evidence that Sharon Rondeau did NOT strangle him with her harp strings and pitch his limp and unresisting body into the Connecticut River? She’s never answered any questions about the subject so we must assume that she’s guilty, guilty, guilty!.
Anyone want to join me in convening a citizens’ grand jury to petition Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to arrest this murderess and subject her to swift and sure constitutional punishment? There’s no reprieve for a female murderer unless she claims to be with child, and Sharon looks a bit too old to be credible to bother with sending a group of respectable worthy matrons to examine her breasts and belly for symptoms of pregnancy.
That day will NEVER come!
Not matter what evidence is presented to them they will claim fraud anyway.
They will continue to question his eligibility even when he is no longer President, they will never admit defeat.
I disagree. I predict, sometime in the summer of 2012, Obama’s COLB will be submitted as evidence in support of a motion for summary judgment. (And the court will accept the evidence, and grant Obama summary judgment.)
“They’ll let him walk. Obviously they won’t show anything, or allow discovery, so the whole thing is pointless.”
Really? So they are going to let members of the military not follow orders based on bizarre beliefs.
The Army’s case is not that complicated. The guy failed to follow a simple legal order that another several hundred thousand of his fellow military followed without any problem.
I’d bet that Latkin is now paying attention the laywer assigned to the case by the Army and will stop listenung the birther-clown-attorney that led him into this self inflicted nightmare.
The Army provided that qualified military lawyer to him so that there could be no appeal based on the inadequancy of his outside legal representation from the birther-clown-school of militray law. Latkin has no way out now, reality sucks for him.
That’s what the entire GOP is doing now, trying to make people believe that the entire country is behind them and their policies.
HORUS,
The birthers will never give up, but they will scream bloody murder when and if they get discovery of the President’s birth certificate and loose another chunk of their dwindling credibility.
I didn’t think the Birthers had any credibility to lose in the first place? 0 – 0 = 0
They probably have a decent exercise area at the USDB at Ft. Leavenworth.
Hopefully, his cell will face Wichita.
I think we will know very early at the GCM whether LTC Lakin is listening to MAJ Kemkes, the very capable JAG officer that was assigned to his case, or Mr. Jensen, the dogbite attorney and Birther. If Lakin employs “The Good Soldier” defense and calls character witness on his behalf we will know he is at least listening to Kemkes. If they just call folks like Vallely and Keyes then Mr. Jensen is still in charge. I suspect it will be some of both. They have to placate the Birthers who may still be contributing to this doomed effort while trying to mitigate the sentence that Lakin will eventually receive.
At the very least, his birth certificate will become available in the year 2036 to researchers doing genealogical research.
Over at the “We the People of the US” site under the misnamed “Obama amends the rules of Court Martial thread, I engaged in a discourse with the moderator and her supporters regarding Lakin and the COLB. Let us just say that after than no matter what evidence is ever presented, they will never believe it. Below is my post where the moderator actually made her responses in it. The level of disconnect is amazing…You have the read the entire thread to get the gist, but it is the usual facts that I don’t like are not the truth and I will believe what I want nonsense….(The moderator’s response is in capital letters)
http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/obama-amends-courts-martial-rules-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-25246
Black Lion | September 12, 2010 at 8:36 pm |
Miri, according the Federal Rules of Evidence, the COLB that was presented by the President is admissible in a court of law. Because it is certified, the Hawaii COLB comes in under FRE 902 (4) pertaining to certified records:
MORE B.S. BLACK LION!! THAT COLB ON LINE IS FAKE! WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO CONVINCE US OTHERWISE? IT ISN’T GOING TO HAPPEN! IF IT WERE A TRUE B.C., IT ALREADY WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT INTO EVIDENCE BY OBAMA’S LAWYERS IN AT LEAST ONE OF THE MULTIPLE TRIALS. DO NOT PRESENT ANY MORE OBOTIC NONTHINKING, ILLOGICAL GARBAGE HERE!
THERE ISN’T ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THAT FAKE MANUFACTURED DOCUMENT TO PROVE ANYTHING. NO ONE EVER CERTIFIED THAT DOCUMENT AND DOH REFUSED TO DO SO. EITHER TELL THE TRUTH OR LEAVE OUR PREMISES. EVEN IF YOU SPEND THE NEXT TWO YEARS WRITING THE SAME LIE OVER AND OVER, WE WILL NOT BELIEVE IT. IT IS ALL MUTT WASH! BB/
(4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any Act of Congress or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.
SHOW THE DOCUMENTATION THAT PELOSI CERTIFIED AS TO OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY. SHOW THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT WAS HERMETICALLY SEALED IN HAWAII!
WITH OBAMA’S FAKE COLB ONLINE NOW, HE WILL HAVE A TOUGH TIME COMING UP WITH A REAL ONE TO MATCH THE INFORMATION ON THE FAKE ONE. NEGRO IS A RACE; AFRICAN IS A NATIVE OF A COUNTRY CALLED AFRICA, IT IS NOT A RACE. AGAIN, BO’S FATHER’S CITIZENSHIP MAKES BO JR. INELIGIBLE. BB
So you might think it is a fake, but a court of law would think otherwise. YES I DO! And fake analysis by guys like Polarik and Techdude don’t count. WHY? BECAUSE THEY DON’T ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH THE DISHONEST OBAMA REGIME AND THEY CERTIFY THEIR WORK? WHY WOULD THEY SULLY THEIR REPUTATIONS?
MORE B.S. BLACK LION. SHOW THAT FAKE ONE IN A COURT OF LAW..WHY HAVEN’T THEY? GET SOMEONE ELSE TO TRY TO CERTIFY AN ONLINE DOCUMENT! HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE COURTS WOULD THINK? /BB
SAME OLD OBOT TALKING POINTS WON’T PASS MUSTARD HERE!
Here listen up. UNTIL THE REAL DOCUMENT/S IS/ARE RELEASED, CERTIFIED BY A COURT, AND OTHERWISE AUTHENTICATED…OBAMA IS A USURPER, A CON-MAN, A PUPPET, A SNAKE-OIL SALESMAN, A FRAUD, A CHEAT, AND IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE SITTING IN THE OVAL OFFICE. /BB
This is funny.
A couple of birthers are starting a circular firing squad.
Jim Byrne, a birther and big Lakin supporter, called Lucas Daniel (“Inspector”) Smith a forger, finding that the Kenya birth certificate was, ahem, a forgery.
Inspector Smith became enraged, and banned Byrne from his site.
Story and links: http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=12333
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Smith has sent his forgery to more than 500 Members of Congress. His own Representative in Iowa has already blown him off.
Note to Smith. Most Representatives and Senators decline to respond to bizarre letters, especially from folks who are not their constituents. Many will respectfully refer the letter to Members who represent the sender. Therefore, Smith should not expect his mailbox to fill up with responses.
I love how unhinged people talk in caps lock. Lol Won’t pass mustard? Good lord if you’re going to use a phrase at least get the thing right.
That was my favorite part, too. WTPOTUS blog is going to have hurry to ketchup to the facts… Their veracity just doesn’t cut the mustered.
Classic examples of ALL CAPS and Birfer Derangement are to be seen in all their native, poo flinging glory over at Greta Wire.
http://gretawire.forums.foxnews.com/forum/general
Be aware, if you post any fact based responses to the more “challenged’ posts, you will be outed as a LIEberal Obot and will, for reasons that elude me, be called Anny.
Apparently in Birferstan there is in fact only one Obot in the entire world and we are all figments of “Annys” mind.
It does get a little entertaining albeit somewhat tiring after a long days Usurping…….8-)
“the moderator”???
Originally, responding to
‘s comment seemed to be the place to start. However, this changed after reading the response by “the moderator.” It is strange to see the original posting. It is really strange to see a reply inserted in a comment using all bold font and capital letters. What do they think that it will make their arguments better. I think “the moderator” should have just stuck to the tactics of blocking comments that dispute their argument. That is the first time I have seen that “unique” behavior.
Using the shift key would require them to hold two thoughts in their heads at once. They’ve got a hard enough time as it is, what with finding the letters one by one and having to tap the keyboard. Fortunately, modern keyboards put the exclamation point in a place where it’s easy to find.
Yeah I just hate when I get my Billy Mays key stuck
http://www.hockeydrunk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/billy_mays_key-425×566.jpg
I think that’s common practice, actually — they ALL will either toss the non-constituent mail or send it to the rep. for that district. The exception might be for committee chairmen, etc. — and correspondence directly related to matters before their committee. Even there, it probably helps to specifically note the bill and committee in a subject field at the top of the letter.
Also…. the members don’t actually read their mail — that job falls to their staff, usually to interns, who are probably the first line of mail-sorters. They also have the job of counting up pros/cons, but only those coming from residents of the district they represent.
Same old talking points mayo may not mean much to a brain damaged birther
That’s why the birther’s parents should have used a condom meant to prevent such saucy tragedies.
This argument doesn’t hold water when you write that Lakin is not asking for removal. Even Orly has said that she didn’t want to remove Obama but then in the video on YouTube, she boasts that she’ll go to the hospital in Hawaii to find a ‘birthing file’ and she is sure that there won’t be one. She then ends that with the statement “We can have him out of office in 30 days”. Yes, each and every birfer believes that the courts will give them the holy grail of discovery and then remove Obama as president. Every OMG you have had has been flushed down the toilet because none of you understand the constitution that you wrap yourselves in.
Some 40-odd years ago, when I worked in the Senate & took the USDA Grad School course on congressional office operations, the teacher, who was a long time congressional AA (administrative assistant) said there was another exception to answering out-of-state mail. “If your boss is running for president, mail from non-constituents gets answered.”
Further translation: the APF will cut him loose once they decide they have squeezed all the money they can out this scam.
LOL! That’s….awesome! 🙂
Yes. THIS. In a nutshell.
Lakin is a fund raiser on legs. As soon as he’s screwed, they’re done, done, onto the next one.
Lakin believes that Obama is not eligible, it is his position that his believe is enough to for him to disobey orders, every birther knows and believes that. Belief is enough, that strongly suggests he is mentally ill. (as are most birthers). They actually think a court can rule on beliefs, really wierd!
.
they need Obama to be not eliglble, other wise they can’t remove him.
the fact that the constituion prevents this “removal” is beyong their comprehension!
More Lakin nonsense from the Post and Fail…..
NEW DEFENSE STRATEGY PROPOSED FOR LT. COL. TERRENCE LAKIN
submitted by Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret.)
(Sept. 14, 2010) — The United States Patriots Union has been formed to represent the more than 70% of patriotic Americans who believe that this nation is headed in the wrong direction, who oppose the Obama administration’s policies and make up the 89% of Americans who think every member of congress should be fired.
……….
We believe that there are only two potential outcomes of this courts-martial, and that both outcomes bring certain challenges. Our first priority must be to unite in defense of LTC Lakin in an effort to arrive at the best possible outcome for both Lakin and the nation.
1. LTC Lakin is found GUILTY of wrongfully refusing orders. With this outcome we get the following precedents.
a) Anyone, without so much as a birth certificate, can hold the office of President and Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military.
b) ALL soldiers must blindly follow orders, whether or not those orders are legal.
c) Not even a high-ranking officer has the right to challenge the lawfulness of the orders.
2. LTC Lakin is found NOT GUILTY of wrongfully refusing orders, as Barack Obama’s illegitimacy is confirmed, in which case the following precedents have been established.
a) Every soldier must make the same decision Lakin made, to follow or not to follow an illegal command.
b) The military chain of command is broken at the top of the chain.
c) Obama must be removed from office and there is no one in the normal line of succession to the Oval Office who can replace him, as they were all complicit in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.
…………….
The Veterans Council of the United States Patriots Union has decided not to let LTC Lakin face these charges alone, without a proper defense. Following this statement, a 2nd White Paper concerning the Lakin courts-martial is being released.
……………..
We call upon patriots to engage and support this vital Veterans Council initiative by joining The United States Patriots Union. Veterans who wish to directly engage with and participate in The Veterans Council should apply to that division, once a member of USPU. A special defense fund may be established within the Veterans Council. The place for veterans to be heard is here, and the time is now.”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/14/statement-on-ltc-lakin-courts-martial/
Interesting….This make believe United States Bar Association and this United States Patriots Union seem to be about 2 things….Hating Obama and seeing if they can get “donations” to Lakin’s cause….It seems like Lakin is the cash cow that keeps on giving….
Also look at the names on the list….Seems like there a a few known birthers…I wonder what happened to Kerchner and Fitzpatrick….
On behalf of the members of the Veterans Council:
Paul Vallely, Maj Gen (Ret), US Army
Harry Riley, Col (Ret), US Army
Carmen A. Reynolds, Lt Col (Ret), USAF
Debra A. Gunnoe, Lt Col (Ret), USAF
Greg Hollister, Lt Col (Ret), USAF
William Harker, Cmdr (Ret), USN
Bill Little, Cmdr (Ret), USN
John Johnson, 1st Lt (Ret), USAF
Luther B. Neff, Capt (Ret), USAF
Michael A. Trudell, Capt (Ret), USN
Fred Herndon, Capt (Ret), USAF
Good lord Paul Vallely is such a vile creature isn’t he? I have a new defense strategy… let the wookie win
That’s about as classic a case of fallacy of false dichotomy as I’ve seen in a long, long while.
That is the one thing they keep stating yet have failed to show us.
Exactly what crime would have been committed by Lakin in his deploying to Afghanistan?
They want to just contend that the orders to deploy themselves were illegal since Obama is not eligible to serve, but that is not how things work with the military.
There is a requirement for an order to be considered a crime, the order must make the soldier actually commit a crime as defined by laws on record.
Just deploying would not have made Lakin commit a crime, none of his orders would rise to that level.
He is toast and the birfers don’t want to hear that.
Can’t these guys find any real lawyers?
This is supposedly the resume for Barbara Ketay.
http://www.restoringamericanetwork.net/barbara_ketay_resume.html
Oh I to say this, but she’s the Pres. of the United States Bar Association.
The hard part is finding a lawyer who won’t tell them they need a reality check. Most lawyers simply won’t sully their career records by taking on a case that is so obviously a losing proposition.
That is one funny resume….2.5 years at a 4th tier law school, and didn’t get a diploma, and then takes classes from a correspondence law school…so she’s an Orly wannabe…and still no diploma….and lists that she read the entire AmJur over 7 years….ok…that’s the same thing as saying I read the encylopedia….not something any sane person would admit to, much less something to brag about on a resume.
With a resume like that, I think I’d be hard pressed to hire her to bluebook and cite check one of my briefs.
Here’s the USBA’s web site: http://www.unitedstatesbarassociation.com/barinfo1.php. I’ve seen better production values on the average Angelfire homage to a dead baby.
Jo, that was an awesome quote….The entire birther movement is filled with phony titled or non-educated individuals…from the DUI lawyer who thinks he is a Constitutional attorney to Polarik, or Polland, a so called document expert because he has taken a few pictures….The funny thing is that these wingnuts hate Obama so much that they don’t even see the irony in what they are doing….
That is because most of these folks are nothing but a bunch of two-bit losers and insecure, incapable persons who have to exaggerate their credentials to make themselves feel important.
I think part of their hatred for Obama and such stems from deep seated jealousy of anyone who actually is successful and achieves the American dream and has a good family… They know deep inside that they themselves are incapable of every coming near to such greatness in their own lives. So, a lot of their bluster sure comes across as mere projection of their own inner resentments.
“We recognize America as a Christian nation, ordained by God.”
How tolerant. What other countries are run by an intolerant theocracy? Hmmm.
My fav is the New Mexico paralegal dude that pretends to be the resident legal expert on the WND message board. Talk about someone who doesn’t have the slightest clue about what he’s saying. The guy knows a handful of legal terms, but doesn’t really know what they mean, or how to use them, and hasn’t the first clue about the law. I don’t know what is more stunning, his total lack of a grasp on some of the most basic legal concepts, or how eagerly people eat his garbage up.
Leonard Daneman? He claims to have advised both Berg and Taitz.
You know, at one time there was an Islamic empire stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Why did it disappear? The fundamentalists took over.
I saw that….what exactly does a paralegal, without even a BA, advise an attorney, even a mail order attorney, on?
Perhaps who is a good outside copy vendor?
Maybe which local deli to use to cater lunch?
it doesn’t happen very often, but every once in a while even a birfer will grudgingly admit to certain limitations:
In other words- “Here is a stinking pile of doody. How soon can you turn it into Emeralds?”
Dr. Conspiracy: Leonard Daneman? He claims to have advised both Berg and Taitz.
I saw that….what exactly does a paralegal, without even a BA, advise an attorney, even a mail order attorney, on? Perhaps who is a good outside copy vendor? Maybe which local deli to use to cater lunch?
I was two classes from my Pre-Law B.A. when paralyzed with Guillain-Barre’, which cost me my health (long distance bike racer) and a full-ride to law school.
Yes. Berg and Taitz, and I have the e-mails to prove it. I also have e-mails from Mario Apuzzo.
Of note was my noticing Velamoor’s misinterpretation of Ashwander vs TVA in the Barnett dismissal. That was my contribution to the Motion to Reconsider, which Carter apparently didn’t even read.
There is no general law or statute defining Natural Born Citizen, so the Constitutional issue is mandatory for judicial review.
I’ll say ‘hello’ for you when I meet with an attorney tomorrow, whom I’ve done research for . . . as like to joke, a paralegal can only give legal advice to attorneys.
That’s where I always go, Bovril. There are a bunch of nutjobs there. The main one is Logia. I call her Baghdad Logia because she’s like Baghdad Bob with her BS. I went there tonight but I didn’t see a lot of birther stuff going on, so I left after a while
This is simply an untrue and ignorant statement.
There is no “mandatory” judicial review based on lack of statutory law defining a term — that is a totally ridiculous assertion.
English grammar?
Perhaps because you cited without any reporter citation?
“The exhibit number shall be placed immediately above or below the page number on each page of the exhibit. Exhibits shall be tabbed in sequential order.” Does that ring a bell? Is it not the primary job of a paralegal to get that right, at least?
Oh, and you did not follow Carter’s argument in the dismissal correctly. I just had a quick look at the Wikipedia article on Ashwander, and found this:
“Brandeis characterized judicial review of the constitutionality of legislative acts as a grave and delicate power for use by fallible, human judges only when its use cannot conscientiously be avoided. This reluctance to use the power of judicial review was, according to Brandeis, predicated on the separation of powers principle that one branch must not “encroach upon the domain of another.” Brandeis identified two prominent limitations on the federal judicial power based on the separation principle: the “case or controversy” requirement and the rule that federal courts have no power to render advisory opinions. Brandeis linked a host of justiciability doctrines, including political question and standing inquiries, to these limitations.”
Separation of powers – which also explains the use of the term “embarrasment” by Judge Lind.
By the way, Google finds only one significant instance of “X Ashwander vs TVA” and it is of course an old blog post by you. So your contribution is not so notable as you seem to think.
In this diatribe of mine, X of course stands for the poor clerk who you claimed came specially from the communist muslim nazi stan of 2008’s Slovakia to force Carter to obey the NWO. I hope one day he will sue all of you for every penny you got.
Of course, it ignores Wong Kim Ark and every Supreme Court decision after it. And since it is not mandatory, the attempt to use Ashwander falls flat on its face: “only when its use cannot conscientiously be avoided”.
Sorry, but I’ve worked for actual, genuine lawyers. Being two classes from a PRE-LAW degree does not substitute for attending an accredited law school, clerking, studying for and passing the bar, and practicing before a real court and in concert with a duly sworn judge and not a classmate in moot court.
As for your attempt to gain sympathy by bringing up Guillan-Barre – not relevant. Also, Guillan-Barre clears up on its own about 80% of the time, so why this would derail an entire career is mystifying (and insulting to those who have a chronic or permanent condition who do indeed manage to complete their BA and go on to law school).
And oh, Leonard, old sport? Paralegals don’t “advise” lawyers. They work for them. That’s because lawyers have, y’know, passed the bar and all. At the most you’re doing the scutwork by looking up cases and maybe drafting a brief or two. Not the same.
Best of all, based on your post here? You’re doing crappy research. Have you considered going back to an actual, genuine, accredited law school before you spout off?
This is how birthers avoid Wong:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8AQUw1IaBPI/SwbdhYWRiII/AAAAAAAAGSk/5A1F2wJNK_0/s1600/SeeNoEvil.jpg
This is not even a ‘birther’ case and never was.
It is a trial of a guy in the Army who happens to be a birther after he failed follow clear orders from his superior officers. What makes any of these birthers think that its anything more than that in the military court’s eyes. His beliefs about the POTUS are completely meaningless, other than for an insanity defense.
We have to wonder how someone could be a paralegal and write a comment like that. The statement goes against how law works. Talk about ignoring Wong Kim Ark.
Indeed-if it is mandatory, how come they haven’t gotten around to it in 234 years? Quite a backlog of cases they must have….
Some one should them them we already have those “court specialists.” They’re called lawyers. And the really good ones that didn’t get their JD from the Sears catalog paid enough attention in law school to actually know what it takes to have standing.
So you don’t have either a BA or a JD….so again, you admit to being woefully unqualified to make comment on the subject of the law. And funny, I read elsewhere on your site that you were forced out of school because that really bad essay you wrote about gay marriage. And on top of that…what decent colleges even give out BAs in “pre-law” and what law schools would give a “full-ride” to someone with pretty much a vocational degree? Sorry….I smell a whole lot of bull, much like the writings on your blog.\
And just to prove how woefully unqualified, you throw in this gem. It’s wrong on so many levels, I wouldn’t even know where to start.
Ummm….no. Paralegals can’t give legal advice to anyone. That would be unauthorized practice of law. Only lawyers can give legal advice. End of story. Paralegals work for attorneys….much like secretaries. If you’re a really good paralegal, we might let you do some legal research, and maybe draft a pro hac motion. And after reading quite a bit of the material on your blog, it is very clear why paralegals are not permitted to give legal advice. They are woefully unqualified to do it.
My guess is because paralegals aren’t qualified to interpret the law.
Some Post and Fail humor for today from their comments….It goes to show us all that no matter what information is released the birthers will never be satisfied nor will they accept that Obama is the President of the United States….These ignorant clowns are pathetic….Making up stuff as they go along….
Harry H says:
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 2:05 PM
While I applaud the support for Col. Lakin, I deplore the idea that “. . . Obama’s birth place is of no consequence in the matter of his status as a natural born citizen’ eligible for high Command of the US Military under Article II – Section I of the Constitution,” as the first White Paper asserts.
What if Lakin’s defense presents Lucas Smith as a witness testifying to his personal knowledge of Obama’s birth in Kenya, supported by much other available evidence to that effect? Let Lakin boldy assert that the C-in-C is a FOREIGNER, as well as the son of a foreigner. Then Obama has to indisputably prove he is an American, at least.
How could any judge get away with saying that having a foreigner in command of our military is not relevant to Lakin’s case? Only in a Socialist Union of Amerika could that happen. But then, maybe we are already there.
William says:
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 4:29 PM
No statutory citizen can be president, only a natural born citizen. (Article II, section 1, clause 5 US
Constitution)
SCOTUS precedent: Minor v. Happersett
“It was never doubted (that)…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves…
natural-born citizens”
“…every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any
foreign sovereignty is, in the
language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….” . .John Bingham in the United States House on March
9, 1866
(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Minor also holds no statutory citizen can ever be a natural born citizen, and vice versa, and so the birth
certificate distraction to define Barack Obama as a statutory citizen makes him decidedly INeligible.
Also, US v. Wong Kim Ark holds that the native born (born in-country) child of an alien can never be a natural born
citizen (as in a native-born child of US Citizens)—Obama is born of an alien’ father and so no matter where he
was born he can never be a natural born citizen, thus can never be eligible.
Obama’s father was a British Citizen by Birth (born in Kenya Colony) and also no matter where Obama was born he was
born a British Citizen by Descent or a British Citizen by Birth; no dual citizen can hold office of president.
Also Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro before the age of 5 making him solely an Indonesian citizen by Hague Convention, since he never naturalized as a US citizen (required even if married to a US citizen to become one), this means he is still an illegal alien.
UNDER NO SCENARIO COULD BARACK OBAMA EVER BE ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT
Alex says:
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 9:17 PM
I agree completely Texoma. If the defense proceeds solely on the definition of natural born citizen and whether that means child of one citizen or two citizens, they run the risk of presenting a defense where the judge can base her ruling on some small or nebulous case, while ignoring the totality of cases that clearly state two citizen parents. Hence- LTC Lakin goes to jail anyway while the media, RINOS, and liberals give her cover. Thus, the defense should pursue the smoking gun of the birth certificate at all costs because the judge will take any loophole in older rulings- that loophole/interpretation does not exist if there is no American birth certificate- case closed. The judge may be hoping for just such a change in defense strategy. Let’s pray that God grants Lakin’s attorneys & General Vallely Solomon’s widsom.
ch says:
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 9:14 PM
Refusal to provide records, which are a legitimate request of Lakin, is an admission of guilt by obstruction, and means Obama is guilty of fraudulently holding office. Lakin has won his case and the Military Court should change the charges to removing Obama, rather than questioning Lakin. Obama has voted with his feet. The judge can twist the law all she wants….she is simply showing her lack of qualifications to even sit in that office, if she does not even know the chain of command.
Citizen Concerned says:
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 at 5:45 AM
Yes, it is imparative that we get to the bottom of the b/c issue. While it may or may not be relevant to Lakin’s case, we simply have no idea where Obummer was born or who is identified as the father on the long form b/c or if he even has a legitimate one on file with the HDoH. For all we know he was illegitmate, and/or his father was a U.S. citizen, or if he was formally adopted by Soetoro. The long form will speak volumes. As the saying goes: “a picture is worth a thousand words.”
I want to see the picture. I am fed up with the obfuscation, misdirection, and lies by Obummer and the miscreants (including the Republicans) who are covering his backside. Even if he has a father who was a citizen prior to his birth, the fact that he has been less than forthcoming should be grounds for dismissal. People in the private sector are fired for far less egregious misdeeds all the time.
Is it possible that his real past is not truly reflected in “Dreams From My Father”?
BTW, that’s my shocked face. :>0
Maxine says:
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 9:46 PM
The timing is perfect. With a new Republican majority in the House, there will be a viable replacement for Obama. Maybe a change in House majority is what the courts have been waiting for since, as Maj. Gen. Vallely said, there is no one in the normal line of succession to replace Obama. Also a Republican-led House would be more likely to do their job and investigate Obama’s sordid past. Once declared ineligible his Exec Order 13489 becomes invalid, and we would finally learn the truth.
Now all we have to do is ensure a Republican majority in the House on November 2. It’s partially up to us to see that happens – please, everyone, go to work on it. And while I’m hoping for success I might as well add that a majority in the Senate would also be helpful.
I love the first comment Black Lion oh please oh please have Lucas testify. He would wither under any kind of cross examination on the bonafides of his character. I could just imagine them asking him Is it not true that you were convicted of forgery? All they would need to ask is what proof he has of ever traveling to Kenya and he would most likely become a hostile witness.
Why nis it that all birthers seem to consider themselves legal experts, and thus able to state unequivocally where every judge is wrong and knows nothing about law?
Do they refuse to cross a bridge until the civil engineer proves to them, personally, in words they, with their lack of engineering education can understand, that his calculations are correct?
Do they storm into the operating theatre and tell the neuro-surgeon exactly why he’s cutting in the wrong place?
Do they demand the nuclear engineer change the amount of cadmium in the reactor control rods, because they claim he doesn’t know anything about nuclear engineering?
Do they insist that 9/11 was an inside job because none of the engineers, physicists, and materials scientists who have testified to the official investigation know anything about the subject that they, with their half-way through high school education are obvioulsy experts on?
…….
Oh wait…..
Never mind….
Note that noted legal adviser and failed pre-law major Leonard Daneman took a powder when people who either were lawyers or had worked in a law office called him on his stupidity….
That would be hilarious. Also we could invite old Lucas Smith friend Jim Byrne to the stand and ask him what he knows about the scam. It seems like something went down for Byrne (mccorupt) to turn on him. And on top of that write the article in the Post and Fail that they scrubbed where he called Smith a liar and demanded proof.
And true to birther from…from Leonard’s site:
“I spent over $10,000 in Paralegal/Pre-Law training . . . so contributions to my PayPal account of any amount would be a blessing to my situation. My PayPal account is under my e-mail address”
$10k? And he claims to be two classes away from a BA in “Pre-law.” I don’t think you could get an Associates degree for $10k. Perhaps he answered one of those TV ads for “study at home to enter the exiciting world of law and be a paralegal.”
Story gets fishier by the second.
I wasn’t aware Orly taitz opened up a law school
Yeah, but once you’re enrolled SHE’LL NEVER LET YOU FEEEEN-EESH ! ! !
I wasn’t aware she opened up a law book.
Leonard Daneman also appears to be an Islamophobe. From his Facebook page:
“To solemnize this 9th year on 9-11, the Church of Facebook is burning 3025 Korans . . .”
Nice.
He also writes “I am a legal researcher/writer working out of my photo studio. The ‘birther’ situation has taken a lot of my time, as well as Healthcare Reform. All take away from my time doing photography; which I am busy doing, right now..”
It would appear that Leonard doesn’t even work as a paralegal, which would help to explain his dearth of legal expertise.
On his Flickr page he says that he never even applied to law school. and he doesn’t mention illness as a reason.
I’ve been an avid photographer since I was thirteen. Gave it up when I was eighteen until my wife (now ex) encouraged me to take it back up when I was thirty-eight.
Divorced, I moved to Albuquerque, NM with just my van and equipment and built a photography studio . . . sleeping on the concrete floor under my enlarger.
Now, my studio is the entire 5th floor of the building. I stopped taking photos for ten years because of illnesses, injuries, and lawsuits.
Now, still recuperating, preparing to start producing again. My last two photos were of the Stripper in Repose in 2005, just after I was paralyzed . . . and the Crack Tart taken January, 2009.
I was about to apply to law school, but decided life was too short to ignore my photography and studio any longer. So now I concentrate on my craft, and an occassional bout of legal research.
http://www.flickr.com/people/36831092@N06/
Interesting that he refers to his “legal research” as a “bout”, which can be the same word used as for a period of illness….
Just saying….
It’s Matt Foley. And he didn’t amount to jack squat.
So we now have 3 different stories.
1) He was two classes away from a BA in “Pre-law” with a free ride to law school when illness struck
2) He was nearly done with his BA and on his way to law school when forced out for writing an essay on gay marrage (a really bad one to boot)
3) He never even applied to law school
Yet another gem in the birther panthanon.
Could be something that rhymes with math o’ logical fire?
Live in a van down by the river
Matt Foley: Young man what do you wanna do with your life?
Son in Matt Foley sketch: Well actually, Matt, I kinda wanna be a writer.
Matt Foley: Well la-de-freakin’-dah! We got ourselves a writer here! Hey, Dad, I can’t see too good.
[moves glasses up and down]
Matt Foley: Is that Bill Shakespeare over there?
Funny thing about all these birther legal reps claiming to BE experts in constitutional law
take a guess who’s credential’s are cited below from wikipedia
“He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.”
Why it’s the POTUS Barrack Obama
Say aint so, say it aint so.
Is it a stretch to believe that if He taught it he may actually be the only expert in all this craziness. ?
LOL
Copy/paste from Whirled Nut Daily makes them experts. Oh yeah, Die Vattle says he ain’t qualified.
I have called Orly out for claiming to be a “constitutional” attorney. You don’t get to make that claim just because you think you are embroiled in a constitutional issue – which she isn’t. You need specialized training and YEARS of doing that specific kind of work.
As for Leonard, I’m a paralegal for a well known attorney in my area with 11 years working for her and 17 years total experience. I don’t “advise” attorneys. Sometimes they ask me my opinion and sometimes other attorneys ask me how to perform a specific task that I’m familiar with, but in the end they have to verify anything I tell them! I work hard at my profession and it drives me nuts when people claim to be a paralegal when they don’t even know what a paralegal does! While I might research something occassionally, I’m really the technical go to. The attorney that I work for has enough faith in me and the other PI paralegal that she sent us to a 3 day seminar in Sandestin and we were the only paralegals there! Leonard is one of those who make paralegals look bad and is the reason we need legislation to regulate the profession.
I think Leonard should read the NM Rules of Professional Conduct:
20-103. Conduct prohibited.
A paralegal shall not:
A. provide legal advice
I checked out Leonard Daneman’s photos on flickr- Not bad at all. He should stick with photography….
Being that he is a birther (and therefore not to be trusted), I did a reverse image search on Tineye to see if his images might have been “borrowed” from someone else’s site. No matches.
As I am a rational person, I conclude that the images are actually his creations.
If I were a birther, I would accuse Tineye of hiding evidence of his fraud, and want to send my experts to analyze Tineye’s software scripts and servers, while complaining out loud that flickr won’t respond and publicly confirm that he was actually the person who uploaded the images. What do they have to hide?
Thanks for the compliments on my photography.
My latest blog entry promotes one of the images taken just prior to being forced to study the law, suing a major attorney for lying to Bldg Code & Safety, thus effectively shutting my new studio down . . . and then another four years fighting an insurance company. http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/new-mexico-landscape-golden-dawn/
As for giving legal advice to attorneys, that is half tongue-in-cheek but accurate. Attorneys rely on substantive legal work done by paralegals which is, in fact, the definition of a paralegal. Some of the ‘heavy lifting’ is legal research, briefs and memos analyzing the pros and cons of a matter of law, which is what I call ‘giving attorneys legal advice.’
I just finished ‘advising’ an attorney on an off-duty cop writing a citation for a traffic violation the cop may have contributed to, which I reasoned compromised the cop’s status as witness under color of law. The case is in court as I write.
Maybe the paralegal complaining above only answers the phone, files, holds the hands of clients, and types up forms. Paralegals do all the work an attorney does, except we are not licensed to give legal advice that a person relies on in subsequent legal action. I don’t work in a law office. Therefore, I am spared the administrative assistant stuff.
As for the Lakin case, and Judge Carter, there are serious flaws in the defense and dismissals; there are serious failures of the judiciary to address a matter of constitutional law, law which is a strict scrutiny issue, not one settled by the vote. It is therefore not barred by the Political Questions Doctrine, and citizens do have standing. Once a citizen pays taxes or is subject to a matter controlled by statute, there is standing.
There are several cases being plead, any of which can be determinative of Obama’s eligibility, and which will then get a fast track in appeal to SCOTUS. I say stop pussy-footing around with a matter of constitutional crisis and get it done.
Your amateur opinions are irrelevant and meaningless.
I left out erroneous. Your amateur opinions are erroneous, irrelevant and meaningless.
Yes. May of 2005 I was two classes from my B.A. in Pre-Law . . . I was viciously attacked for the exam essay on Gay Marriage by a gay administrator and Green Party teacher (both lawyers) . . . I had also just settled a four year case, which was disappointing due to lawyers who refused to fight (see my blog on personal injury) . . . I tried to get over this by training for a 100-mile bike race, but in a matter of a few weeks fell to Guilain-Barre’ Syndrome. I had a full ride scholarship waiting on application to law school, but gave it up due to the effects of GBS.
From early 2001 to 2005 I had a penpal in Tehran via Yahoo messaging. She was a student in Boston when trapped in Tehran by the Khomeini revolution. I started studying Islam then with college texts, the Koran, and its associated books. May I also recommend the Calcutta Quran Petition, a landmark lawsuit in India.
I am no Islamophile, and do propose the ‘religion’ is a political fabrication and must be banned from establishing itself in America, and then fought throughout the world. I am not alone in this . . . just an early advocate.
i have to say leonard after reading your screeds the only thing that seems authentic about you is your photography
How do we know he is the photographer? Everything from this birther has been inconsistent, contradictory and strangely pathetic in a begging desperately for attention way.
1. The Constitution gives the authority to determine the president’s eligibility, and to impeach and remove the president, to Congress. The separation of powers mitigates against any court determining the president’s eligibility for office or taking any steps to remove him from office. If any judge were unwise enough to do so, the Supreme Court would overrule him, unanimously, so fast it would make your little birther head spin.
2. The First Amendment to the Constitution makes it clear that government has no authority to regulate, much less “ban” any religion. That may, and has, led to some freaky religious practices, but that’s the price we pay for living in a country where government holds no power over the individual human conscience. I think it’s a price worth paying.
So, congress interprets Article II?
Congress may investigate, but SCOTUS has strict scrutiny level of review. You don’t even need Marbury v Madison for that one.
Congress interprets the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for the purposes of impeachment and there is no judicial review. Same for “natural born citizen”. The courts have no role in either the installation or the removal of a President.
By the way Leonard, did you offer your services to the plaintiffs in Ankeny? There was a case in which standing was not a bar and which could have been appealed to the Supreme Court. The Indiana Court of Appeals said that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen, regardless of who their parents were. But you were out taking pictures and missed the deadline…Tough luck.
Getting a bit snippy, eh?
I read Ankeny . . . so, you think a judge’s dicta in an appeal for a lower court dismissal rises to the level of a fair hearing on facts and law?
My contribution to Barnett was pointing out that clerk Velamoor (former atty for Obama) misinterpreted Ashwander, which actually favored the Plaintiff.
Let’s just get the case to court for a full hearing. Then congress, as in the Clinton impeachment, will have a legal basis for ‘high crimes.’
In case you hadn’t noticed, Islam was “established” as a religion in the U.S. a long time ago, so that particular ship has sailed. Indeed, the U.S. government acknowledged that Islam is a religion as far back as 1797 (Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously and signed by President John Adams):
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
It was the furthest any of you crazy birthers ever got. The lower court ruling was not appealed and so that ruling still stands. Now why didn’t your friends bother to appeal the decision? Your advice to Barnett obviously wasn’t any good. I sure they’re not paying you anything for your opinions.
Congress didn’t have a legal basis for high crimes during the Clinton impeachment that’s why the republicans were punished in the next term
Ricky,
I’ve heard that before. It illustrates the danger of ‘appeasement’ . . . it can come back and bite you on the ass later.
However, facts are persistent things. Read the Koran and associated texts, and it is clear that the ‘religion’ based on Abrahamic covenant is a fabrication from a sick mind, and its intent to lead murderous, criminal elements ignorant of history and the bible to undermine and destroy secular governments and enslave the people.
This is proven to the highest standards of evidence . . . thus, voiding the 1st Amendment protections of Islam . . . Cf. Title 8 U.S.C. 1424
You obviously have not studied Islam, so get back to us in a week or two after you’ve done your due diligence.
Oh, Leonard, Leonard, Leonard.
Thank you for another fine example of paralegals are not permitted to give legal advice (and any attorney relying on your “advice” needs to have his head examined). If you’re going to use a term of art like “strict scrutiny” it would behoove you to learn how it is actually used. You might get away with it on the WND forums that is an echo chamber for your beliefs, or on your blog where you control what gets posted, but in a forum where regular visitors will include real lawyers, who have attended real law schools, passed the bar, and have practiced in the real world, you will get called out on it. You make utterly absurd statements like “once a citizen pays taxes…there is standing” when it is black letter law that there is no such a thing as tax payer standing. What exactly your purported “matter of Constitutional law” and something being decided by a vote has to do with the prohibition of the Political Questions Doctrine is beyond me. It is clear you’ve been around enough to pick up a few words and phrase, but you genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about. All of which makes you attempts to criticize Judge Carter (or the Lakin case) all the more laughable.
As for anything being “fast tracked to the Supreme Court” is there even anything still active? I mean you have Orly cert petititon (which no doubt will be denied) against her sanctions that, despite her constant attempts to inject the question, has nothing to do with the President’s eligibility, but is there anything else? The one shot the birthers had got make it to the SCOTUS (Ankeny) they passed on it. You guys have been given the smack down some 70 times now, and you really think you’re going to get fast tracked to the SCOTUS? The only think birthers have a fast track to is dismissal.
Funny you obviously haven’t studied the law get back to us when you’re done. The Christian bible has also lead to a murderous and criminal history. Islam itself only became radicalized in the last 50 years. The christian religion has a history bound in blood
One could argue that Mormonism, which was invented by a conman, isn’t a “real” religion. Certainly Deminionist Christianity has the goal of overthrowing the U.S. Constitution and replacing it with the Law of Moses. Should these religions be outlawed as well?
I would argue that they should not, because once the government starts outlawing religions, it is by extension “establishing” which religions are to be considered acceptable.
And there goes freedom of conscience.
And who decides which religions are good and which are bad. You? Me? A special ecumenical commission? I wouldn’t want to part of an America that dictates to people what the deepest beliefs of their own hearts should be.
How exactly is it dicta, if the it was the basis of the decision? The case was fully briefed. It was a fair hearing. You lost. Your birther arguments were totally rejected.
and I hate to break it to you, Velamoor was never Obama’s attorney. He was a junior associate in the Washington State office of a firm that the Obama campaign employed. I’m guessing the attorneys that actually worked with the President, and the President himself never even heard of him nor vice-a-versa. And as much as you like to pin the whole decision on the clerk, I would still take the opinion of a clerk, who made it through law school, and was bright enough to land a federal judicial clerkship, over a paralegal without even a BA.
The judges wrote a very considered opinion. The Ankeny plaintiffs stated their “arguments” no less cogently than such brilliant “attorneys” as Donofrio and Apuzzo. The fact remains, if you didn’t like the decision you were free to appeal. You didn’t, so it stands.
Velamoor was never an attorney for Obama. He was a junior associate in one office of a giant firm, another office of which represented the Obama campaign. Despite your “contribution”, you guys still lost.
It had one. So did 70 others and they all lost.
Why don’t you try being on the winning side for a change? In 2 years you’ve gotten nowhere. go take some photos and come back in 2012. Nothing is going to happen before then.
There were no “high crimes” in the Clinton impeachment. You don’t have to take my word for it-he was acquitted after a trial in the Senate. As in “not guilty”.
Zeppy, You want me to cite the case law where standing was based on the plaintiff as a taxpayer?
In the end, many things have influence on standing, which is discretionary.
I have Choper’s ‘Constitutional Rights and Liberties’ open to page 1444, the section on Congressional Power to Create Standing . . . casual reading.
Mormonism? I have a problem with the gold plates, Moroni, etc. Mormons were even more far out than Jehovah’s Witnesses, but one can not fault either sect in their current form for not following the bible more accurately and faithfully than Roman Catholics.
The founding fathers were deeply rooted in the Protestant path of self-discovery and personal responsibility, sans priests. Wm Penn, a Quaker . . . Roger Williams . . . Miles Standish . . . all great Christians.
Yet, I will advise all of you to read the Koran and associated texts. I also recommend Googling and downloading the Calcutta Quran Petition as a must read.
Standing should be granted, as the issue of who has standing is less an issue than if a sitting president has constitutional authority to be in office. One must weigh one issue against the other . . . call it a case in equity?
Do you have a credible cite for Velamoor being an attorney for the President?
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/4073288_1
“I’ve heard that before. It illustrates the danger of appeasement’ . . . it can come back and bite you on the ass later.”
Wow…Leonard is a better judge of what constitutes a legitimate religion than John Adams. And apparently a better judge of foreign policy than John Adams also. Most people wouldn’t feel so confident that their judgement is superior to Adams.
“However, facts are persistent things. Read the Koran and associated texts, and it is clear that the religion’ based on Abrahamic covenant is a fabrication from a sick mind, and its intent to lead murderous, criminal elements ignorant of history and the bible to undermine and destroy secular governments and enslave the people.”
I have read the Koran. It reminded me a great deal of the Old Testament, but its harder to read frankly. Your contention is part of the bile circulating around the internet right now and frankly should offend the millions of loyal Muslim Americans- including i point out Muslim servicemen and Muslims who died in the World Trade Center tragedy commited by religious fanatics.
“This is proven to the highest standards of evidence . . . thus, voiding the 1st Amendment protections of Islam . . . Cf. Title 8 U.S.C. 1424”
Perhaps in your mind. But clearly GW Bush disagrees with you. I will agree he is no fine legal scholar as yourself, but I will give him credit that at least after 9/11 he wasn’t trying to inflame religious bigotry against Muslim Americans- like you are.
“You obviously have not studied Islam, so get back to us in a week or two after you’ve done your due diligence”
I think the only studying of Islam you have done is to cherry pick the parts that promote violence. I could accomlish the same thing by using the Old Testament.
However, just as modern Judaism doesn’t use the Old Testament to promote violence, neither do the majority of Muslims- anywhere.
Your viewpoint show both your own ignorance of American traditions and your willingness to throw away the Constitution when it is inconvenient. What ugliness.
You’ve been caught lying already. Why would anyone take you seriously?
If you were viciously attacked for writing that paper, it very well could have been because it was a rather poor example of legal writing. It was full of unsupported conclusory statements, misstatements of law, with a smattering of religious b.s. thrown in for good measure. But considering your “conclusions” on Islam, not entierly surprising.
“Do you have a credible cite for Velamoor being an attorney for the President?”
Yes. I do. The president’s representing law firm, that is. Coe, Perkins was it?
Good news. My attorney friend/associate just won his case, but it is without prejudice. My research may still finalize the win in the end, but the respite for now is welcome.
Thanks for the lively comments, but I have to go . . . please read the Koran and associated and recommended writings as suggested in the previous posts.
May God be Found True, and Every Man a Liar.
The bible per se is not the source of bloodshed, even the French and Spanish persecutions of the Jews and the Huguenots . . . those were actions of men and monarchs. History shows a flawed series of civilizations and governments . . . let us protect this one, a constitutional Republic of great value and privilege to the common man (us).
I can too. It was Flast v. Cohen. It’s a narrow exception based on government spending in violation of the establishment clause. Flast was decided in 1968, and yet the courts have not broadened it in the 40 years since then. We’ve not talking about the establishment clause here, now are we?
“Standing should be granted, as the issue of who has standing is less an issue than if a sitting president has constitutional authority to be in office.”
See, I have no formal legal training at all, but even I know the law doesn’t operate on what someone thinks is right, rather than what is legal.
“The bible per se is not the source of bloodshed,”
Don’t make me cite where the bible specifies bloodshed, and the God of the bible commanded whole cities of men, women and children to be executed.
Personally- I don’t think this means the Bible is now endorsing violence, but I can certainly cherry pick lines to make it seem so.
If I may paraphrase something I saw you post on the WND blog a long time ago…this is exactly why real lawyers hate discussing the law with people who haven’t studied the law. They don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. There is nothing discretionary about standing in a federal court. It is a Constitutional requirement. Federal courts are courts of limitied jurisdiction. They can only resolve “cases and controversies.” Without standing, the court does not have jurisdiction over the matter.
You are so full of crap. Being a member of a law firm makes him the President’s attorney? Are you a pathological liar?
When did Velamoor directly represent the President? /rhetorical question
Weren’t you ejected from school after being caught lying? What else are you lying about?
Standing is not discretionary in a technical sense, but a practical one. See below:
STANDING
Among the essential elements of what the Court considers a case or controversy is an injured plaintiff. The requirement that a plaintiff show that he or she has suffered “injury in fact” is a key requirement of the Court’s doctrine of standing. (Note: Since standing is necessary to establish jurisdiction, courts will undertake to examine the issue even if not raised by either of the parties.)
Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case–or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court–, the requirements for standing are tightened.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/caseorcontroversy.htm
You just are a never ending sea of junk law, aren’t you? Every time I go back, I find more crazy statements by you. One does not “void the 1st Amendment protects” of anything. Please provide any citation that says one can “void the 1st Amendment.” That’s just crazy talk. Your citation to naturalization law is totally meaningless. First off, the question of naturalization is one that the Constitution places solely in the hands of the legislature. It is a matter that the court would be barred to review under the Political Question Doctrine (please note the proper use of the phrase). Secondly, even if it were subject to judicial review, it is one that would survive strict scrutiny (again, please pay attention to the proper use of the phrase). It is a narrowly drawn statute (prohibiting naturalization of elements wanting to overthorw the nation, and thus leaving the ability to deport them) drafted to fill a compelling government interest (avoding overthrow of the nation by foreign powers).
What you are proprosing is banning a religion, clear violation of the 1st Amendment, and a subject that is actually Constitutionally prohibited, not a power that is clearly delegated to one branch like naturalization (and reaches natural born citizens as well as those who immigrate). Additionally, while it may serve a compelling state interest (prevention of radical elements who would do harm to the nation), it is so broadly drawn to be obscene, and not even worthy of discussion. It wouldn’t take very much creativity to say that a more narrow statute could be drawn to more effectively reach the legitmate government interest.
The statement of court manipulation has some support on close cases, where harm may be justified in some sense (i.e. the case of someone who claims they would walk though the park if it isn’t destoryed by developmetn), but it has never been broadened to the lengths proposed by birthers (tax payer standing, no actual harm suffered, and no possible court resolution of the problem). What you are proposing is the equivalent of saying because a police office has the discretion to let you off with a warning for speeding, all laws are optional, and he can do the same for murder.
The idea of standing being a doctrine manipulated by the court is not my origination. I am not saying what you are saying, but in a sense, the prosecution of laws is optional. Justice is not equal. Theoretically, every infraction of the law should be prosecuted and the punishment discretionary when the law allows. Back to standing, there are often dissenting voices on the issue of standing. There haven’t been on the cases of standing for the eligibility issue, but it sounded as if you were speaking generally.
1) Of course, I have heard it said that ‘Nurses do all the work a doctor does, except we are not licensed to give medical advice to the patient’. Well, I have never heard of a nurse doing an open heart operation and every time a plane mechanic or a stewardess manages to safely land a plane, it gets into the newspapers worldwide. Of course, I will grant you that everything legal ever done by Orly Taitz (WBUH) could have been done by a paralegal, and probably better
2) You are spared the administrative stuff. So, does that mean that over the MTR for Judge Carter you not only told her to quote Ashwander but also told her at least to look at the Court’s rules for citations? Or do you think proper citation is menial administrative work and therefore beneath you? Because Orly also seems to think it is beneath her.I almost feel like repeating John’s/James’ quote of Judge Carter at the start of the trial to remind you how world-shocking it would be to miss a legal argument over incorrect citation. Of course, the fact that your misleading extract from Ashwander is contrary to the spirit of the decision in that case (and most Anerican lawyers would know that) proves why refusing to consider an argument that is incorrectly cited is not administrative pussy footing on the part of the courts, but just the correct way to ensure that legal precedent is not misrepresented.
3) “Once a citizen pays taxes or is subject to a matter controlled by statute, there is standing.” Where did you get that from? It reminds me of the birfer sites looking for people who would have standing after the first Berg case was dismissed. The political angle is clear here: your definition of standing would mean tanding in electoral questions depends on whether the voter pays taxes or not, and that cannot be right. Remember that in order to have standing you also have to suffer a wrong – and the wrong suffered by all the voters (who pay taxes) needs to be divided up over all these people, meaning the final remaining wrong is so small that there is no case.
4) I do not know of any pure birther cases still being plead. YES, There are some Pro se prisoners suing “Barrack Obama, Usurper, claiming to be President of the USA, Britney Spears, erotic dancer, claiming to be an actress and a singer, Benedikt, Pope, pretending to be Bishop of Rome and their general Puppet Master, the Priory of Zion.”
5) In a later post you claimed Ankeny on the two parents claim was dicta. Sorry, but the discussion by the Indiana Appeal court judges of Obama’s eligibility was preceded by the tell-tale words:
“For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint.”
Surely, even a paralegal should understand that this means that the decision by the judges that you do not need two citizen parents to be an NBC is an integral part of the argument to dismiss the case, and therefore NOT dicta?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903
WBUH?
Saying someone was better at writing legal documents than the good Dr. Taitz is the very definition of damning with faint praise
It’s apparent that you wouldn’t recognize the “highest standards of evidence” if they hit you in the face.
Are mosques recognized as churches by the I.R.S.? Yes or no?
What 8 USC 1424 has to do with what qualifies as a religion is a mystery to me.
I think we just need to be careful when making a statement that standing is anything but a requirement. As with anything in life, there is a patch of gray between the black and white, and room to play with. That is the area that can be manipulated. In that gray you have opposite results with the same facts depending on the temprement of the judge, and the skill or lack there of, of the attorneys. However, even in those gray areas, a judge will have to write an opinion that will survive appelate review. A judge is not going to grant standing based on a citizen’s status as a tax payer, because he knows full well he will get reversed in a big smack down (judges don’t like being reversed).
.
No one who went through the first year of a real law school would think that Ashwander stood for the proposition that if “[t]here is no general law or statute defining Natural Born Citizen, so the Constitutional issue is mandatory for judicial review.” When a court says it will not hear a constitutional issue if the case can be decided on as “a question of statutory construction or general law” it does not mean those are those are the only times it will not address an issue unless it says so. Basic english really. Carter dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdition and cited Ashwander as he read jurisdiction as being a matter of “statutory construction or general law.” Jurisdiciton is generally both a matter of constitutional and statutory law. Ashwander can in no way be read to imply that no subject matter jurisdiction is required if “natural born citizen” is not defined elsewhere as it neither says that and any first year law student knows a court has no authority to hear any case without subject matter jurisdition. You have some real work to do on these matters.
.
More nonsense. If you had actually gone to law school you would know that clerks are usually hired a year and a half before they start. Boy, Soros is good. Placing a Obot in there prior to Obama even being nominated. You might also know that judges have more than one clerk and it is unlikely a clerk starting in the middle of a case even worked on it. If you actually clerked, you might know that even if he worked on the case it is unlikely he would have been entrusted with much responsibility in writing the opinion so early in his tenure. If you ever worked for a big national firm, you would know the chances a first year associate in Seattle ever met a senior partner in Washington in another legal group is pretty much zero. Finally, if Orly or her esteemed advisors understood the law, they would know that Orly should have asked for recusal of such person prior to the ruling which she had ample opportunity to do as she brought this up before the ruling. I understand you probably have not studied the law of libel, but perhaps you should before you accuse someone of something when you have no evidence he even worked on the matter.
There is more to standing than the doctrine of “injury in fact.” Reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes an injury in fact. But the injury also has to be particularized to the plaintiffs in the case; i.e., it can’t be an injury which is shared by the general public. That is why taxpayers could not challenge the constitutionality of, say, the Iraq War. I could argue that as a taxpayer I was damaged by the huge cost of the war, but if I was damaged so was every other taxpayer. I have an injury but not a particularized injury, so I have no standing.
Standing is essential to ensure that that the Federal courts are not paralyzed by lawsuits from every citizen who is dissatisfied with a law passed by Congress or a decision made by the Executive branch.
Theoretically, every infraction of the law should be prosecuted
Perhaps, but as a practical matter it is impossible. Case in point – some time back I received a speeding ticket. I went to court one afternoon, and there were more than a hundred people there to attend an afternoon court session. In all but the most serious cases, the town attorney offered the defendants a plea bargain rather than prosecute them. The plea bargains had nothing to do with the strength of each case, they were simply a matter of numbers. If all 100 defendants chose to go to trial, one day’s worth of defendants would tie up the court for weeks.
Leonard Daneman’s claims on knowing the law and his credentials is a common practice among right wingers, it’s called “argument from authority”. It runs the gamut from phony PHD’s to false employment with special agencies. Mindless wingers eat this stuff up. (also known as “appeal to authority)
.
It is funny that birthers complain that courts will not address the Vattel argument, then dismiss out of hand the one court that did. Anytime actually lawyers point out the multitude of cases that defined natural born citizen by the common law, birthers scream that it is dicta. As if any court has ever made a holding supporting Vattel’s definition. In fact, no court has ever said a natural born citizen needs citizen parents even in dicta. Scholars actually spend alot of time debating what is dicta and what is the holding. Ankeny couched the natural born analysis as an alternative holding, although it didn’t need to reach the issue and hence could be called dicta. Of course, such would mean that any court in any of these cases that addressed the natural born issue would only be deciding dicta as all the cases could be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. If you studied constitutional law, you would know that dicta in a supreme court case, such as Wong Kim Ark’s defining of natural born citizen in accordance with the English common law, will be treated as binding on lower courts until the court makes a contrary opinion. Wong’s definition of natural born was actually necessary for the holding of the case as such was that the 14th Amendment was declaratory of existing law and hence the court needed to define citizenship law under the original constitution. Accordingly, some people have argued that such definition is part of the holding. No matter, the Ankeny court and any other legal authority that speaks on the subject will treat Wong as the most substantial authority on the subject under the supreme court speaks again.
.
I suggest you do more research. As has been pointed out by judge and judge in the frivolous eligibility cases, taxpayer standing is a very limited doctrine that has generally been limited to challenging allocation of funds in violation of the establishment clause. Please show us any authority that such can be the basis of standing in an eligibility case.
Just a quick question here….
Is anything that ever happens to ever your fault?
There isn’t even that, as far as I can tell. The SCOTUS docket makes no mention of a cert petition.
No. 10A56
Title:
Orly Taitz, Applicant
v.
Colonel Thomas D. MacDonald, Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-15418)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 8 2010 Application (10A56) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Jul 15 2010 Application (10A56) denied by Justice Thomas.
Aug 4 2010 Application (10A56) refiled and submitted to Justice Alito.
Aug 10 2010 Application (10A56) referred to the Court.
Aug 16 2010 Application (10A56) denied by the Court.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Orly Taitz 29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy (949) 683-5411
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Party name: Orly Taitz
Attorneys for Respondents:
Neal Kumar Katyal Acting Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
Counsel of Record United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al.
Orly never filed a cert petition in Lightfoot v. Bowen, either.
It’s more than that Rickey. Allowing citizens to sue over political decisions would in effect render the legislative and excecutive branches irrelevant and transform the US from a democratic republic into a judicial dictatorship. Everything I read from the birthers suggests that their real model is the Islamic Republic of Iran, except substitute Christian for islamic and US for Iran. They would like an equivalent to the Guardian Council of mullahs who approve presidential candidates and have the final say over all laws. They would staff this body with great thinkers like Taitz, Apuzzo, Berg, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc.
For the record, my PhD is 100% genuine.
Nothing is ever his fault….even the fact that his story changes every time he tells it isn’t his fault. It isn’t his fault either that they’re not particularly convicing either…you see reality has a liberal bias.
.
Also, as Judge Carter pointed out, “[t]he third prong of Article III standing requires that the alleged injury be likely to be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (citations omitted). The redressability prong requires the court to “examine whether the court has the power to right or to prevent the claimed injury.’” Railway Labor Executives Ass’n v. Dole, 760 F.2d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Gonzales v. Gorusch, 688 F.2d 1263, 1267 (9th Cir. 1985)).”
.
Carter goes on to state ” [u]ltimately, Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is having to respect the authority of a president who does not meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ injury would only be redressed by the removal of President Obama from office. Plaintiffs thereby ask this Court to intervene and overthrow a president who was elected by “We the People”–over sixtynine million of the people.”
.
and state: [t]he combination of Article I and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment leads the Court to conclude that there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue of the removal of a sitting president to a coordinate political department–the Legislative branch.”
.
Hence, unless the court has the power to remove the president from office, a power the court said was allocated to Congress, there is no standing, taxpayer or otherwise. End of story.
Yes facts are persistent things, which is why you birthers have consistently failed. You don’t seem to understand the difference between fact, and baseless conjecture.
You give a good example of this when you claim that Islam isn’t a religion. All that is required for a philosophy to be a religion is a belief in a god or gods. All the other crap you blathered on about is simply not relevant to whether Islam is a religion or not.
Of course it’s pretty hypocritical of you to single out Islam when the Abramic soup de jour of America, Christianity, has just as bloody and political histoiry as does Islam… if not more.
Hmmmmm….. hypocrisy and obsessive focus on irrelevancies to support a wehacked out conspiracy theory…
I guess you ARE qualified… to be a birther.
Mark Twain on the Bible:
During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.
Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry … There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.
Unless the President was manufacturing a defective product, I doubt Perkins Coie’s product liability group ever got involved in defending the President.
He graduated from law school, apparently, in 2008. The election was 2008. You really think Robert Bauer entrusted the President’s case to a first year product liability associate? One working on the other side of the continent?
Have you ever filled out a conflicts check for a government position? I have. You aren’t required to list all clients your firm has represented, only those matters on which you have personally worked. See, for example, Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.10(d):
and the discussion:
The rule is the same for those working for the government (Rule 1.11)(c)(1) prohibiting lawyers from:
So, do you have any information that suggests that Velamoor has confidential information gleaned from working at Perkins Coie or that he was personally and substantially involved in the case while there?
Yeah, didn’t think so!
Standing is a controversial issue. It is the subject of a fairly recent law review article, one that I found appealing
Abandoning Standing: Trading a Rule of Access for a Rule of Deference
Richard W. Murphy
Texas Tech University – School of Law
after reading a summary here http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/standing/
It is my personal opinion that it depends on the mindset of the court as to whether standing will be found.
Of course. Why does a police officer let one speeding car keep on speeding and one not, rhetorically speaking.
.
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independance, and James Madison, the father of the Constitution and primary author of the 1st Amendment, championed the Act for Religious Freedom in Virginia prior to the adoption of the Constitution. It is in this bill where we see Jefferson’s and Madison’s most explicit statements on religious liberty. In the words of Thomas Jefferson such Act would:
.
” comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”
.
“Mahometan” meant “muslim” in those days. Madison himself warned multiple times against a christian establishment as he clearly wanted to avoid the establishment of any religiion or group of religions, including christianity. I guess Jefferson and Madison didn’t get your memo.
I’m not a lawyer, nor a paralegal, but even I know the facts of the case have nothing to do with a statement on what the law is.
Professor Murphy essentially agrees with me. As I said before, determining whether an “injury in fact” has occurred can be very subjective. However, determining if there has been a particularized injury is usually a very objective assessment. And then there is the separation of powers issue. As Professor Murphy says,
Nonetheless, the separation-of-powers concerns that motivate the restrictive approach do justify a rule of judicial deference. More specifically, just as Professor Louis Jaffe suggested nearly fifty years ago, these concerns justify a rule that courts should, when resolving “public actions,” defer to the reasonable judgments of political branch officials.
When it comes to the eligibility of the President, the courts must defer to Congress.
“I guess Jefferson and Madison didn’t get your memo.”
Clearly they aren’t true Patriots, in the modern sense of the term.
Hey Charo- thank you for the reference to what appears to be an excellent blog by “Constitutional Lawyers”. They call themselves this, and the entire blog appears devoted to Constitutional questions, so while I am unclear of their ideology, they at least superficially seem to have some actual Constitutional Law interest.
And guess what. I couldn’t find a single article devoted to defining what is a Natural Born Citizen. Nor one expounding a two citizen parent requirement.
They mention the Birthers cases in passing, but not one discussion of Vattel.
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that can occur in groups of people. Rather than critically evaluating information, the group members begin to form quick opinions that match the group consensus. .
Okaaay
Charo may have been refering to the March 10, 2009 entry which discusses Hollister v Soetoro. Following the links there to PrawfsBlog, you will find that the court decided to assume standing, then dismissed the arguments as frivolous. The court then “issued an order requiring attorney-of-record John D. Hemenway to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 11 for filing a claim for an improper purpose and for filing a claim not warranted by existing law.”
In other words, the court decided that in this case Hollister might have standing and so looked beyond the standing issue long enough to look at the merits of the complaint. Finding that the complaint was filled with so much worthless speculation and was such a blatant attempt to use the Courts to make a political statement it threw the complaint out and ordered Hemenway to explain why he shouldn’t be sanctioned.
My reading is that the court did not really accept standing, just provisionally set the question aside long enough to look at the merits of the case.
Why should I listen to a bigot who claims to practice law without a license?
*snorts*
I was a legal secretary and worked closely with paralegals and law clerks. And NONE of them, from the seasoned old pro to the newest clerk, would have DARED to call what they did “advising” the attorneys. They worked FOR the attorneys, not the other way around, and for you to claim that you advise someone who’s actually passed the bar when it’s crystal clear that you’ve read enough to get by in small claims (if that) is not only pompous, but the dictionary definition of hubris.
Disgusting.
WBUH. A port manteau of Peace Be Upon Her and Whoever Be Upon, er, the Dental Chair.
By the way, I find the discussion about Judge Certer’s clerk disgusting. Law clerks are typically selected a long time before they start their stint. The guy surely is not connected to the eligibility issue and never did anything to “deserve” being mentioned in this connection. Some Obama haters googled him after some very inclusionist Wikipedian added him to the Carter article. The whole thing went viral when birfers found a database of lawyers that (obviously erroneously) had him with a diploma form a Slovak University.
Perhaps we should stop using the clerk’s name so that google does not again push him forward in searches done by the brainless. Something personal: I did not like it at all when I typed in the guy’s name in google and my own screen name came up as one of the proposed enlargements of the search term (no need to try it out NOW – no longer works). I do not like revealing my real identity to anyone, but on that occasion I felt I needed at least to leave some trace to the affair in case anything did happen to me IRL.
1. Sorry, old sport, but the Latter-Day Saints do NOT follow the Christian Bible. It’s only one of their sacred books, most of which were written/translated by Joseph Smith. Their beliefs *draw* on some Christian ideas, but there are very good and valid reasons for not considering them to be Christians. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, OTOH, ARE fanatic Bible readers, which is why getting into a proof-texting contest with one is fruitless. Their interpretations are ahistorical and verge on heretical in some instances, but they are miles ahead of the LDS when it comes to knowledge and study of the Bible.
As for Catholics not following the Bible, thank you for outing yourself as an anti-Catholic bigot. What’s next, quoting the memoirs of Maria Monk?
2. It’s “Myles” Standish, as you would know if you’d bothered to read more about him than the Longfellow poem, and he was the military leader of the Plymouth Colony, not a religious thinker or mystic. He was also an early exponent of the “the only good Indian is a dead Indian” school of political thought. Not a great Christian by any definition.
3. I *have* read the Qu’ran. You, sir, are an Islamophobe and a bigot who should be ashamed of himself.
The cognitive dissonance is deafening. Where to begin . . .
1) The only dictum that’s authoritative is God’s and the framers, e.g., the bible, commentaries, letters, the Federalist Papers. Judge Grey’s slip of the tongue in Ark is not. Nor is it in Liakakos or Ankeny. The only thing you should take from Wong Kim Ark is a state’s right to confer citizenship on a native-born child to avoid aparthied. Citizenship at birth to those who already have nationality is a conflict of law, if not lawlessness itself.
2) If you read the Koran and associated texts and do not hate Islam, you are a sick man.
3) Show me one verse in the New Testament that invokes violence against the non-believer.
4) Respect for lawyers who passed the bar? The second attorney I sued lost his law license, and a handful of others who crossed me lost their jobs. I have respect for very few lawyers.
5) Orly Taitz grew up with the Cyrillic alphabet, got her DDS in Hebrew, and her ‘mail-order’ law degree in English. I’ve struggled through her pleadings . . . yes . . . her Social Security issue is still giving pause to many.
6) A constitutionally ineligible president re-instates the ‘death tax’ and hundreds of estates lose over half their equity to the goverment. The eligible candidate, however, ran on extending the repeal of the death tax indefinitely. At first look, the issue is political. However, the acting president’s actions are invalid and void if his presidency violates the constitution. Who is injured in fact? What laws have been broken in nexus to the harm done? Can you argue that a man willing to violate the constitution to become president also has no respect for private property? Is a violation of the constitution by a president so serious that standing claimed by a citizen should be looked upon in a most favorable light?
There will come a day when a judge with balls that ‘clang’ takes on an Obama eligibility case, and I can assure you that Chicago Law School adjunct instructor in Constitutional Law will be found guilty of fraud and negligence. ‘Oooops’ will not get him off this time.
Leonard,
I am pleased to have a chance to be the first person to respond to your long diatribe. Frankly pretty much everything you say appears at the surface to the rantings of a mad man. I am not calling you mad, I am just saying what you say is lunacy, and so far removed from reality as to make me wonder about who you really are.
“The only dictum that’s authoritative is God’s and the framers, e.g., the bible, commentaries, letters, the Federalist Papers”
See you lost me the moment you claimed the bible had any relevance to our legal system. That is your personal opinion, based upon your faith, but irrelevant to the actual system we live in.
“Citizenship at birth to those who already have nationality is a conflict of law, if not lawlessness itself.”
Novel opinion, but completely contradicted by the 14th Amendments actual words and the Courts opinion.
“If you read the Koran and associated texts and do not hate Islam, you are a sick man.”
Call me sick then. I will proudly stand with Thomas Jefferson rather than with you. But then again I am used to Christians announcing that any who don’t believe like they do to be sick.
3) Show me one verse in the New Testament that invokes violence against the non-believer.
My Bible contains both the New Testament and the Old Testament- what you are going to say God was wrong when he demanded death and destruction to those who opposed the Jews? Or maybe you are saying that you only believe in the part of the Bible that says what you want the Bible to say?
6) A constitutionally ineligible president re-instates the death tax’ and hundreds of estates lose over half their equity to the goverment.
First of all- 69 million voters disagree with you about that eligiblity thing.
Secondly President Obama as far as I know hasn’t reinstated the Estate Tax- it is scheduled by law- put in place before he came into office- to go back into effect in 2011. But you are right about hundreds of estates- under current law only an estate valued over $7 million dollars for a couple would be taxed- and only on the amount over $7 million dollars. Is this fair? Reasonable people could argue this, but personally, I will not lose any sleep about the tragedy of children only receiving 7 million dollars rather than 13 million dollars.
“However, the acting president’s actions are invalid and void if his presidency violates the constitution”
You are delusional. Really. There simply is nothing to support this other than the rantings of idiot birthers.
“Can you argue that a man willing to violate the constitution to become president also has no respect for private property?”
While an interesting question, first of all we would have to find a candidate willing to violate the Constitution to become President. Haven’t heard of one yet.
“There will come a day when a judge with balls that clang’ takes on an Obama eligibility case, and I can assure you that Chicago Law School adjunct instructor in Constitutional Law will be found guilty of fraud and negligence.”
There was a judge who took on the Obama eligiblity case- a state judge- and found the birthers had no evidence, no case- nada, nothing. Why do Birthers lose all respect for any judge that doesn’t rule the way they are certain the judge must rule?
Anyway- I imagine you will post again without addressing anything, with just another wall of ravings, but just couldn’t resist pointing out that you are not only wrong, but fairly scary in how you are wrong.
1. The Bible is not now and never was the foundation of American law or the Constitution. You’d know that if you’d actually finished your BA or gone to law school.
2. I’m a woman who’s likely old enough to be your mother. You’d know that if you’d bothered to read my previous posts.
3. I never mentioned the New Testament because it’s not relevant to the President’s birth in Hawaii. Why are you bringing it up?
4. You don’t seem to have respect for anyone, so hating the people who actually were able to do what you didn’t seems par for the course.
5. I work with people who grew up in other countries, with other languages. ALL of them spell and write decent English. Growing up in Moldovia is no excuse for Orly Taitz’ refusal to use a spellchecker, or for her blatant racism.
6. The President was born in Hawaii, elected in a free and fair election, confirmed by Congress, and sworn in by the Chief Justice. I don’t know about Bizarro World, but here on Earth Barack Obama is the President of the United States.
7. The federal inheritance tax affects only the rich, as you would know if you’d bothered to read something other than right-wing propaganda funded by the Walton family, of Wal-Mart fame, who are furious that they can’t pass the billions made by destroying the American economy on to their descendants.
“The only dictum that’s authoritative is God’s and the framers, e.g., the bible, commentaries, letters, the Federalist Papers”.
You should google Treaty of Tripoli. You’ll then find evidence that Jefferson wrote the United States are not a Christian nation.
By the way, according to you any amendment or law written after the Constitution was ratified – is not authorative? You want to return to slavery, women legally treated as chattel and restricted suffrage. Only a fool would not see why those three items are all very relevant in a discussion of Obama’s eligibility.
“Citizenship at birth to those who already have nationality is a conflict of law, if not lawlessness itself.”
And how do people who become Americans at birth already possess another nationality? Is there any country in the world which provides passports to still births? I agree Bobby Jindal will have some explaining to do if and when he announces his candidacy for the US presidency, but anyone who believes he can be legally stopped from doing so, does not realize what Wong Kim Ark really said. Like you.
“3) Show me one verse in the New Testament that invokes violence against the non-believer.”
And it does not take much more exclusion of parts from the bible to no longer find any verse that condemns homosexuality. And of course, I could also have retorted: “Show me one verse in the Old Testament which outlaws divorce or polygamy.”
“5) Orly Taitz grew up with the Cyrillic alphabet, got her DDS in Hebrew, and her mail-order’ law degree in English. I’ve struggled through her pleadings . . . yes . . . her Social Security issue is still giving pause to many.”
Orly Taitz (WBUH) still refuses to explain what she did in Romania, so you, like everybody else, depend on her testimony alone to claim she did her DDS in Hebrew. In Orly’s time, children at Soviet schools were taught English, French or German from an early age and as far as I know those languages are never written in Cyrillic. And yes, she got a law degree from Taft online, no need for parentheses there. The social security issue is only an issue for people who do not know how the internet works.
I give Orly no slack for having lived in the Soviet Union. Others have lived there without developing a narcissistic paranoid personality. She writes as if she lived there under Stalin, whereas she lived there under the rule of the corrupt Nomenklatura (Brezhnev and later Chernenko were both members of the Moldavian maffia). She did not even learn anything during that time, as proven by how her website continually gets infected from suspicious sites in Kazakhstan, the Russian Business Network.
“6) A constitutionally ineligible president re-instates the death tax’ and hundreds of estates lose over half their equity to the goverment.
That still does not take care of the standing use, because government in the USA is not like in Nazi Germany or in the Soviet Union under Stalin (if and when you understand that, tell Orly about it). Responsibility for any government decision is shared between Obama, Congress and even local government. Part of Lakin’s problem is that even on war, the President cannot just do all he wants, and yes that IS in the Constitution.
“There will come a day when a judge with balls that clang’ takes on an Obama eligibility case, and I can assure you that Chicago Law School adjunct instructor in Constitutional Law will be found guilty of fraud and negligence.”
71-0 and not a snowball in hell’s chance of improving on that. You are lucky to live in the USA by the way, making a statement like the above would make you liable to be sued for libel, no, not by the President, King or Prime Minister, but by several of the 71 judges you have just insulted.
Ah ha — a challenge! I love this kind of crap. Lemme get my copy of my New Testament……
There we are. I’m ready. Flipping, flipping…
Matthew: “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” 10:21 Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” 10:34-36 Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. 11:20-24
Mark: Any city that doesn’t “receive” the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11
Luke: God strikes Zacharias dumb for doubting the angel Gabriel’s words. 1:20
John: Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to “sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” 5:14
Acts: Peter claims that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23
1 Corinthians: Paul claims that God killed 23,000 in a plague for “committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab 10:8
Hebrews: Those who disobeyed the Old Testament law were killed without mercy. It will be much worse for those who displease Jesus. 10:28-29
I could find more but I think this will serve.
My favorite New Testatment anecdote is from Luke 8:27-37: Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. Then they were thrust down to Hell and there was much “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
I usually like to stay out of the discussion concerning Islam, but there has been something bothering me since I heard about it this summer. A Muslim woman in New Jersey requested a protection order from her husband and accused him of unwanted se*ual contact, (marital r*pe). The judge who first handled the case found that the husband did not have the intent to commit the assaults because he believed he was entitled to s*x from his wife according to his Muslim religious beliefs (a cultural defense). The judge was overturned on appeal. There was all kind of outrage on the sites that carried this story. There are a number of states that specifically outlaw marital “assaults.” I don’t know how the issue is handled in states where there is no specific statute, but I would guess it is treated as an assault. Where should the line be drawn between tolerance and intolerance of the practice of one’s faith? Is the judge who found no criminal intent an oddity?
So, we’ll be going to war with Italy, that grants citizenship at birth to all those born in the US to formerly Italian parents? Poland?
Or are you saying that all Italian-Americans are ineligible for the Presidency?
Law school would have taught you the difference between void and voidable and, if you listened, the effects of apparent authority.
This is the problem with birthers, you have to suspend more and more of the law in order to get the effects they want. Standing – out. Apparent authority – out. Citizenship law – out. It’s like the underpants gnomes of South Park:
Step 1: The law says that a President actions taken under color of law are valid even if the President is later found ineliglble.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: The law is changed!
Step 1: Natural born means born on the soil.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: The law is changed!
Etc.
As other have pointed out, the estate tax was going to go back into effect in 2011 if no one did anything.
Could you guarantee that McCain would successfully extend the repeal?
Do you need to watch the Schoolhouse Rock video “I am a bill” again? To see how things are done in Washington? First, the Democratically controlled House and Senate have to vote on a bill extending the repeal, then the President signs it.
Even in your hypothetical you would have no standing because the court cannot force the House and Senate to do something, so there is no way the court could redress your “injury!”
Is there a crime called “negligence?” What’s the statute? What are the elements of the crime of “negligence?”
I’d love to see how you’d prove that Obama knew he was ineligible (to prove fraud) or that a reasonable person would have concluded that he was ineligible (negligence).
Matt 10:34-36 Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.
Luke 19:26-27 I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence
Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Rom 1:31-32 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
If you take sentences out of the Koran you can get the impression that Islam is violent. There are, for example, 520 passages that describe violence in the Koran. There are 1,200 violent passages in the Bible.
Could someone explain why someone in Israel would have kept a herd of pigs?
“Because this event occurs in “country of the Gadarenes,” which means near the city of Gadara, we are probably dealing with a herd of domestic swine owned by Gentiles because Gadara was a part of the hellenized, Gentile cities of the Decapolis.”
(google search)
The Catholic Church has a teaching authority called the Magisterium. I don’t believe the Muslim faith has such an authority to be the final word so to speak. Neither does the Protestant faith, which is why there are over 20,000 denominations leaving one free to interpret scripture according to one’s own mind.
Thanks, charo.
“1) The only dictum that’s authoritative is God’s and the framers, e.g., the bible, commentaries, letters, the Federalist Papers. ”
That’s odd, I always thought that the Constitution was the law of the land in the United States.
“3) Show me one verse in the New Testament that invokes violence against the non-believer.”
Matthew 13
” 41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Revelations 18:8
“Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.”
And Revelation 16
1And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
2And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.
3And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
4And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.
5And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
There are more verses, Acts is full of the horrible things that will happen to non-believers (Ananias being struck dead by God, for instance, and the usual stuff about roasting in Hell if you don’t believe.)
That sounds pretty violent.
🙂 I am still in an Outer Banks mind. Our family went on vacation this past week, and instead of being responsible, I am on the computer.
Back to work…
state of mind
Boy, your country is sure chockful of illegal jews, french, italian, greek, etc-americans. Do you have any plans to deal with then that doesn’t involve miradors?
That would also include the 1st & 2nd Amendments, among others. Hee, hee, hee!
Funny…what law school do that teach that at…oh wait, that’s right you didn’t go, so you can make your statements without the burden of actually knowing what the law is. Pure B.S.
Are you implying defenestration?
.
Wow. I tried to avoid making fun of your claims of being some kind legal expert when you are simply a paralegal and not a lawyer. However, such is not necessary as your posts clearly show you know nothing about law. Justice Gray’s (law school might teach you that judges on the Supreme Court are called “Justices” not “Judges”) slip of the tongue was the basis of the holding of the case as one can see from reading the briefs as well as the majority and dissenting opinions. Everyone in such case understood the 14th Amendment to be tied to the definition of natural born citizen in the original constitution. Indeed, if you actually read the debates of the 39th Congress, you would see that they clearly stated over and over that they were trying to clarify who was natural born under the original constitution after Dred Scott put such notion in doubt. In fact, since Dred Scott held that a black person could not be a citizen under the original constitution, unless the 14th Amendment modified the original constitution’s natural born citizenship clause, a black man could not be president today. If you ignore the only clear statement from the Supreme Court on a subject, exactly what do you base your conclusions on? Oh right, I have seen your work, you base it on pretty much nothing.
.
“Citizenship at birth to those who already have nationality is a conflict of law, if not lawlessness itself.”
.
Again, if you went to law school you might understand how to do research and understand that in the founding period and early republic, both nationality and citizenship were defined by place of birth. Anyone who disputes this simply has not done the research as the authorities are overwelming.
.
“There will come a day when a judge with balls that clang’ takes on an Obama eligibility case, and I can assure you that Chicago Law School adjunct instructor in Constitutional Law will be found guilty of fraud and negligence. Oooops’ will not get him off this time.”
.
Yeah, we see this type of comment all the time from the mass of uneducated birthers. I would think that if you really are some kind of legal professional that you would know that jurisdiction and standing are not a matter of “balls.” Of course, as pointed out above, your analysis of Ashwander makes me wonder if you have any understanding of such issues at all.
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
There are a small number of pig farms in Israel but by law the pigs are raised on platforms or in laboratories and are not allowed to touch Israeli soil. A 1963 law banned pig farming except for medical research but excess pigs were allowed to be slaughtered for meat which has created a controversy. Overall, pig farming has been limited to a few kibbutzes and a small, traditionally Arab-Christian area in the north but demand has been increasing in recent years from the influx of secular Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union. It’s a contentious issue for many Orthodox Jews.
It depends on whether the swallow is African or European.
Because Israel was a Roman province and many towns near the Sea of Galilee, like Sephoris, had large non-Jewish populations.
And yes, I knew what you meant. Thanks, Ellid.
Er, Lupin is probably thinking of this kind of mirador:
http://www.google.be/imgres?imgurl=http://debrisson.free.fr/images/coree/mirador2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://debrisson.free.fr/dmz3.html&h=768&w=1024&sz=81&tbnid=1qFGXirNZ0XcdM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmiradors&zoom=1&q=miradors&hl=nl&usg=__Fmdw63Z8Igm1_FizG0B-Drxmaj4=&sa=X&ei=oZeTTIemLpm8jAfr_dG7BQ&ved=0CC0Q9QEwAw
Both the Oświęcim variant and the East German Mauer version, I think. Though the DDR wanted to keep them in, and Arizona wants to keep them out.
Yes I did indeed. 🙂
I stand by my reading of Ark, and Ashwander. To hell with your law school, and dictum as authoritative, baaah . . . only as authoritative as the source. The underlying purpose of Ark was to avoid aparthied, a condition that violates natural law. Ark does not define ‘natural born citizen,’ nor does Liakakos, Ankeny . . . and I’ll throw Elg in there as well, even though Elg does not actually misinterpret NBC.
The definition of NBC as used solely in Article II can be determined by reading Article II itself, and almost nothing else. HAPPY CONSTITUTION DAY
As for my ‘stories,’ all of those things happened within the span of about six weeks. The Guillain-Barre’ took me from an athlete to hardly able to walk in two weeks.
Lucky for my law instructors I got ill . . . I was going to sue them.
Sorry. The eschatology of Revelation is not analog to the jihad of the Koran. Revelation describes, in John’s the vision, Christ’s return to kill the wicked in order to save the righteous, the gentile times have run out and earthly governments have failed under their own fallacies . . .
Nowhere in the New Testament does it invoke Christians to take up the sword, except for self-defense. Surprised you didn’t cite that scripture.
I’m sure you’ll be happy to hear that this is my last post on this forum. You are all biased, cognitively dissonant, and cowards. As for my health, while being in bed for months and being on Prednisone caused weight gain, which I’m working on . . . I’m still strong as an ox.
I have a client, a crack addict, consub4. She got me tangled up in a drug deal one night, so I walked up to the dealer’s car and told them to stop selling her crack, they were killing her. They had guns . . . but my audacity and size scared the hell out of them.
That is the kind of ‘balls’ we need in our country again. Stand up to crooked, cowardly judges . . . stand up to the Muslims and deny them entry into the U.S., and ban the building of the Ground Zero ‘Rabat.’
I do look forward to the SCOTUS case against Obama . . . Kagan and Sotomayor forced to recuse themselves, and then being kicked out on their appara’chick’ asses along with Obama . . . Hey! I can dream, can’t I?
Leonard Daneman clearly has delusions of grandeur. A handful of attorneys lost their jobs because they “crossed” a photographer/paralegal wannabe? I’d like to see Leonard back up his claim by naming the attorney who was disbarred after Leonard sued him.
I ran a New Mexico docket search on Leonard and found three lawsuits in which he was a plaintiff. One is his divorce case from 1995. Then in 1996 he filed a Complaint for a preliminary injunction against someone named John Pravato, who is not an attorney. That case was dismissed in 1999 for failure to prosecute. The third case is Leonard’s personal injury case which he filed in 2004 against a private party and Allstate Insurance. Both of the defense attorneys in that case are still practicing law in New Mexico. Leonard’s attorney in that case is still a lawyer, too. Leonard represented himself in the other two cases.
That’s it. No legal malpractice actions. No actions of any kind against an attorney.
I’m tempted to accuse Leonard of concocting his story in order to try to impress us, but I’m willing to give him a chance to name names and jurisdictions. Leonard? Are you listening?
Based on this moran’s ravings, he would have lasted about a week in an actual, genuine law school with actual, genuine professors who knew what they were talking about.
And oh – has anyone contacted a good research hospital? I’m sure someone could get a grant to study the first documentable case of Guillan-Barre syndrome causing paralysis of the intellect.
“To hell with your law school, and dictum as authoritative, baaah”
Cowardly, delusional arrogance, thy name is birther.
I won against Pravato, a breach of contract case, in which he thought he could ignore the case and just not pay me. I got a Writ of Garnishment. He ‘appealed’ in Mot to Recon and I won again. Sued an attorney for padding legal fees and failing to plead for reasonable legal costs . . . got his billings cut 50%.
Two attorneys lost their jobs for violating contract . . . one of which could have lost the law firm a $50K/month retainer.
The two years in *** court won’t show . . . the judge jumped through unethical hoops and desperate leaps of illogic to protect one of the parties, who lost his *** and after a few years was appointed to *** . . . [insert rimshot] . . . the case was a slam dunk, but the record in the Pacific Digest would have ruined two families of attorneys.
Welcome to New Mexico.
I do have one friend left in New Mexico . . . an attorney . . . impressed with my work that damaged that unnamed attorney, who he had a thing against . . . because of another attorney’s lawsuit against him . . . complicated, eh?
Delusions of Grandeur? It was Hell and a Huge Waste of Time and Life’s Precious Energy . . . I just don’t like running from fights. I still read the law and do occassional research . . . study of the constitution is never a waste of time.
I am trying desperately to do more Photography, which I am sure is an effort you support whole-heartedly.
“I’m sure you’ll be happy to hear that this is my last post on this forum.”
Birthers just can’t be honest about anything. LMAO
Leaonard: I thought the post before your last post was supposed to be your last post?
If we can’t even trust you when you say “this is my last post”, how are we supposed to believe anything you say?
Paranoid delusions, and whacko conspiracy theories are usually very complicated. It’s a defense mechanism that makes it hard to see the picture in one take and track all the intricacies, which makes it easier for the deluded to convince themselves.
Translation: To hell with what the law actually says. My interpretation is right even though virtually everyone that actually went to law school disagrees with me.
I’ll agree with you on that….but somehow I get the feeling we disagree on what is covered by that “almost.” And I get the feeling that just about everyone with a JD will also disagree with you on what is covered by that “almost” too….but hey, you’re a part time paralegal. You know better than those silly people that actually went to law school.
I’m sure they would be shaking in their shoes…..I’m guessing it would go something like this. Exhibit 1 for the defense, your poorly written, essay, that misstates the law, makes broad unsupported generalizations, makes statements of fact without any support, and throws in a smattering of religion for good measure….caes dismissed.
I presume whey you say “client” it is in your capacity as a photographer…since we all know paralegals don’t have clients. However, we are not drug dealers. Many of us here are practicing attorneys. I’ll admit, I do find your audacity stunning. I mean I wouldn’t think it possible for someone with your level of education, to repeatedly completely misuse legal terms of art, be completely wrong on the law, and generally not have the first clue about what you’re talking about, go around with your chest puffed out like you’re some force to be dealt with. I wouldn’t think it would be possible to be this much in denial.
Yes…we need to have the balls to stand up to those crazy judges that actually know what the Constitution says, and enforce it. Because after all, you’re a part time paralegal, and who better knows what the law is than a part time paralegal who hasn’t had his mind polluted with the something as silly as actually learning how to read and interpret the law.
And we’re “all biased, cognitively dissonant, and cowards.”
Jeez….what a nutter.
.
You can stand by your idiot readings all you want, nobody cares. You obviously can’t defend them, as you don’t even try. If you really think Ashwander somehow says judicial review is mandatory, you need to take a class in jurisdiciton. If you really don’t think Wong Kim Ark defines natural born citizenship, you need to take a class in English. I know the opinion is long, perhaps you should read the syllabus or dissent which both clearly understand what Gray said. Like it or not, it is simply a fact that lower courts like Ankeny will treat Wong’s language as binding until the court revisits the issue. Not sure why you bring up Elg. Such case only referanced “natural born” by ackownledging that the circuit court below determined Elg to be natural born. The court below, of course, based such determination on the English common law. Funny how you think you are smarter than so many courts and judges. Finally, you think “natural born citizen” can be defined simply be reading Article II. Really? There of course is no definition there. We do know that in 1787 the only use of the term “natural born” was with respect to the English common law. We also know that “subject” and “citizen” were used interechangably at such time. We also know that no edition of Vattel contained such term and such term would not be a literal translation of the Frence. Finally, we know that when the term “natural born” was used during the founding period it was used, without exception, with referance to the common law. You are right, there really is no debate here.
.
BTW, do you really brag about helping Berg and Orly? Do you say you helped them get their cases laughed out of court? Does your resume say you helped out on some of the most frivolous cases in recent years?
Leonards statements can pretty much be summed up as this:
“To hell with the U.S. Constitution”
Funny how it seems every time he tells a story it’s different. It went from lawyers losing their licenses, to they nearly lost their jobs and there was a massive conspiracy against me….gee, what a surprise, caught in yet another lie, Leonard’s story changes, and someone else is to blame for all his problems.
Oh, Leonard, Leonard, Leonard….are there no limits to your b.s.? Perhaps if you’re going to B.S. you should at least make sure it’s not something people can actually check. Did you really think you were going to waltz in here, throw a series of lies, drop a few legal terms that you really don’t know what they mean, completely mistate the law, and actually impress anyone?
It’s pretty obvious you’re not very good at this law thing. Perhaps it is better you stick to photography….although, I do have to say, I’ve quite enjoyed having you visit. Do feel free to stop by again.
I think our worthy Mr. Daneman is a living example of the words of Alexander Pope:
“A little learning is a dangerous thing
Drink deep or sip not from the Piraean spring.”
Or, in words that his tiny little brain can comprehen:
DON’T SPOUT OFF ABOUT THINGS YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND.
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night so now I’m a lawyer. 🙂
Then explain why the final entry on the case, dated 3/11/99, says this:
DANEMAN, L VS. PRAVATO, J
D-202-CV-9610009
DISMISSED – NO PROSECUTION
Disposition Date 03/01/1999
There is no entry of a writ, no notice of an appeal, no Motion for Reconsideration. It doesn’t look like a “win” to me, unless you’re using Orly’s definition.
Sued an attorney for padding legal fees and failing to plead for reasonable legal costs . . . got his billings cut 50%.
This is the attorney who lost his license? Where did you sue him, in small claims court? What is his name? Are you claiming that he lost his license because of you? Or that you had anything to do with him losing his license? And what was he representing you for? The New Mexico Courts docket shows only one case in which you were represented by an attorney, and that attorney still has his license.
Two attorneys lost their jobs for violating contract . . . one of which could have lost the law firm a $50K/month retainer
Earlier you implied that they lost their jobs because they “crossed” you. Well, birthers are good at moving goalposts.
I do have one friend left in New Mexico . . . an attorney . . . impressed with my work that damaged that unnamed attorney, who he had a thing against . . . because of another attorney’s lawsuit against him . . . complicated, eh?
Not complicated at all, if true (which I seriously doubt). I’ve worked with complex litigation for 35 years, so there isn’t much which I haven’t seen.
I still read the law and do occassional research . . . study of the constitution is never a waste of time.
I recommend that you read the District Court ruling in Wong Kim Ark, in which the Court ruled that he was indeed a natural born citizen. Then read the government’s SCOTUS brief. In point of fact, the government acknowledged that the District Court ruling said that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen:
The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen… (p.2)
The government went on to ask:
Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? (p. 34)
Clearly, the government’s position was that a ruling in favor of Wong Kim Ark meant that he would be eligible to be President of the United States. You can read the entire brief here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
Wow Leonard, you certain do keep stepping in it. Perhaps you should puff your chest, change the story again, and blame someone else?
After his bigotry towards Muslims, I’m just waiting for him to go full on Mel Gibson.
I have read them, am most certainly not a Muslim, and it is you who are a sick, pitifully ignorant excuse for a man.
Wow! Someone had to stroke their ego. As far as your other post, if the guys had guns, why would they be scared of someone so big as you claim yourself to be? Seems if they were crack dealers that they’d just pop a cap in your arse…
Hey All!
Before you make fun of Leonard Daneman, remember this:
God is a bullying Narcissistic unlicensed paralegal with the Constitution of an Ox stricken by Guilain-Barre’ Syndrome.
Benji
Leonard Daneman:
My God, Leonard, you absolutely must keep posting! Your puffery generates a more entertaining show than Barnum and Bailey! And the replies–thank you all! How pleasant it is to see the specious arguments of an arrogant blowhard excoriated with reason and evidence.
We are quite amused.
Leonard Daneman: I stand by my reading of Ark, … The underlying purpose of Ark was to avoid aparthied, a condition that violates natural law. Ark does not define natural born citizen,’
I suggest you read Ark. You clearly haven’t read it yet. Try reading the WHOLE thing, not just the passages quoted by birthers and anti-birthers.
It proceeds like a mathematical equation, a logical syllogism – A = B = C = D.
Natural born citizen = natural born subject. Wong was born here, so Wong = natural born citizen.
It does define natural born citizen. Take out the part that defines natural born citizen, and you’re left with Wong not being a citizen. You’re left with a definition of citizenship that allows states to reimpose the conditions the 14th Amendment was designed to address.
If you have a part of a case that is central to the ruling, where the ruling falls apart if you take it out, that is not dicta. The Latin for it is ratio decendi. The definition of natural born in Wong is not dicta.
You cannot get from Wong being born here to Wong being a citizen without passing through a definition of NBC. At least not how Wong is written.
Correct me if I’m wrong. Don’t quote me passages of the decision, but take me along the path of the reasoning. If I’m wrong about NBC, then how did Justice Gray reason Wong into citizenship?
Simple. A faith’s practices does not give one freedom to violate criminal laws to commit crimes, particularly federal crimes. For instance, you cannot claim that your faith allows you the right to murder people or that part of your religious practice requires acts of actual cannibalism for ceremony. Therefore, it is a complete red herring fear-mongering that Sharia Law could ever be implemented here. As an example, you can’t stone people under our laws, regardless of what your religion claims or what some other, less developed countries allow.
In essence, your concerns and fears are not based on practical reality of how our country’s laws work in conjunction with the freedom of religion.
Just to expand on that, so that there is no confusion that I’m implying ONLY high crimes.
As another example of where 1st Amendment protections of religious freedoms cannot violate even local laws:
Consider a scenario where someone incorporated elements of NASCAR into a religion and got enough followers and a broad enough belief set to be recognized as a religion. If one of their tenets of their religious practice was a requirement to drive in excess of 100mph every Sunday, then they would be able to build their own private racetracks for “worship” at their religious sites, but they could not go onto public roads and use their religious beliefs as an excuse to argue their way out of a speeding ticket. They would have to adhere to any local, state or federal speeding and driving laws on public roads, just as everyone else.
I’d like to revisit that point because I provided quite a few quotes to the contrary, which you totally ignored in your characteristic cognitive dissonance mode.
Take Matthew 10:21: “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.”
This is how believers are supposed to deal with non-believers. I’ll grant you that the method of execution (the sword) isn’t clearly specified, but explain to me how advocating murdering your brother or your parents isn’t an incitation to violence?
I do not believe a word of this. I also think you have a tiny penis.
First, thank you for answering. My comment was made in response to this comment:
“Call me sick then. I will proudly stand with Thomas Jefferson rather than with you. But then again I am used to Christians announcing that any who don’t believe like they do to be sick.”
I don’t believe that a woman should be forced to have intercourse with her husband or present one of a given list of reason for refusal so does that make me sick? If you research the issue, you’ll find that there are marital guidelines, so to speak, in the Koran. They allow for a woman to refuse affection for certain reasons. We have a judge who found that there was no criminal intent. I suppose that had she presented one of the permissible reasons for refusal, he would have taken her side. Did he not implement Sharia law in effect? What if the woman did not appeal? I did not make up the initial case here so it is not fear mongering to ask questions. I ask again: is this judge an oddity? If so, why wasn’t he removed from the bench according to the reasoning you provided to me:
Simple.A faith’s practices does not give one freedom to violate criminal laws to commit crimes, particularly federal crimes.
This judge allowed the breaking of the law because he didn’t follow the simple notion that you presented.
If you read the context, Jesus is referring to the martydom to be suffered for the sake of His name.
Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.
.
Generally true, though this has been a pretty controversial area of law. I believe Emploment Division v. Smith held that the free exercise of religion did not prevent appliction of nondiscrimatory, generally applicable laws. Hence, free exercse only really prohibits discrimatory laws. Hence, a state may prohibit use of the drug peyote as long as such law wasn’t meant to discrimate against the specific indian tribes who used such as part of their religion. Thus, Islam is not a defense to generally applicable law. At the same time, we cannot pass laws specifically against Islam or sharia without passing strict scrutiny. Of course, it is not very hard to make a discriminatory law look generally applicable. A lot of scholars disagreed with the Smith decision and thought any laws infringing upon free exercise should require a higher level of scrutiny.
You have this backwards. This is predictive (or descriptive written in hindsight) of non-Christian family members turning over their relatives to persecution.
I’m guessing your story’s details have been a garbled as it has been passed along. Most crimes, including rape, do not require criminal intent (a common law mens rea of specific intent), they only require general intent, the intent to commit the act. I’m guessing there might be some details that have been lost in empassioned retelling of the story, because it sound very much like one of those ubran legonds that gets passed around in emails that has very little relation to actual reality.
The judge, not me, made the ruling about criminal intent.
http://volokh.com/2010/07/23/cultural-defense-accepted-as-to-nonconsensual-sex-in-new-jersey-trial-court-rejected-on-appeal/
If this is an urban legend, please advise.
Although that quote was from G, I appreciate the information.
Dr. C, Charo: Apologies for having indeed used a backward example. I stand corrected. This was indeed a quote about families being torn apart because of Jesus.
I still think the New Testament is full of indiscriminate acts of cruelty and general intolerance — since I was on Matthew I noted 11:20-24 (Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching) and 13:41-42, 50 (Jesus will send his angels to gather up “all that offend” and they “shall cast them into a furnace of fire), but the earlier example was terribly wrong.
Mind you, I don’t blame the times for being what they were — these were indeed savage times.
Matthew is a well-known prophecy of signs of the end times, not what Christians do to one another.
There have been a few, emphasize ‘few,’ respectable and thoughtful comments, but the rest are embarrassing and sophomoric. This last one is one of the more despicable posts.
As for the Pravato case, the Metro website is not exactly intuitive. I garnished over $1000 out of his account and he got another hearing, at which I quickly dispatched him. That cost him his fiancé, who was a former friend of mine.
I hope you also find the ex parte’ communication one attorney I countersued got into the record. He told the judge I carried a gun and he was afraid I was going to shoot him. Well, I found out later he had conspired/colluded with the Plaintiff attorney in order to screw me out of the attorney fees and injunctive relief, which I had asked for, that would have gotten my business back up in a couple months, instead of two years.
In the end, that collusion cost the other attorney his law license and fancy law office. He laid low for a couple years until he got a cozy lifetime appointment from the Democrat Party.
I had an interesting discussion with my attorney about citing dicta . . . let’s just say sometimes you can get away with it, but I compared it to picking up a half-cooked hamburger dropped on a dirty floor and calling it Beef Wellington.
You may accuse Orly Taitz of not being experienced enough to be filing these cases, but her heart is in the right place. Hemenway and Apuzzo are skilled litigators and still have a chance at success when the political winds change. Leo Donofrio wrote an excellent opinion piece for WND, at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=134881
Remember these two irrefutable facts: 1) The framers made only one exception for a son of a British subject to be eligible for the presidency, and 2) a wife married to an alien did not confer her maiden citizenship/nationality to the children.
No. Explicitly the Constitution does not mention “son of a British subject” at all (nor even the word “parent”, “son” or “child”). Implicitly there are two exceptions: that for “natural born citizens” (those born in the United States) and that for a person who was a citizen of the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. The second exception has never been needed. President Chester A. Arthur’s father was born in Ireland, and a British Subject, by the way.
Let me add the following so Daneman won’t go off half cocked:
Consider George Washington. Washington’s father was a British Subject who died before the American revolution and therefore was a British subject his whole life. John Jay [later Supreme Court Chief Justice Jay] wrote to Washington to suggest that none but a natural-born citizen should be commander in chief of the United States. Do you think Jay meant to exclude Washington? That hardly seems credible.
I want to mention another person who read the Koran without being sickened by it:
William F. Buckley.
So we have Thomas Jefferson, William F. Buckley and myself- we have read the Koran without calling it an evil book.
GW Bush called Islam a religion of peace.
But Leonard- Leonard knows more than Thom, Bill, myself and GW.
Truly Leonard is privy to knowledge us mortals are not.
Before the ‘time of adoption’ specified in Art II, all citizens of states of the colonies were natual born British subjects. All of the first presidents, until John Tyler, were natural born British subjects and eligible under that exception clause.
I don’t supposed that you are a frequent visitor here, and so I would not expect you to know this, but the Obama Conspiracy Theories ‘irony meter” has been known to explode over remarks like yours.
if you read the history of the time, the concern was about a junior son of a European royal family who, unable to inherit the throne in Europe would come to the US anbd convince people to elect him President. There was never a concern regarding someone born in the US to immigrant parents. No one would ever have considered such a person anything other than eligible, prior to 2008. I’m not even sure the framers meant to exclude ordinary immigrants themselves from the Presidency, but that is the tradition that has grown up over the years.
The whole thing is an arcane technicality that a wise nation would have done away with long ago. To make a hoily fuss over it at this late date is nothing but transparent politicing. Now, Leonard, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
By the way,you said yesterday that a certain post was your last one, How are we to assess the fact that you are still here and how that speaks to your veracity?
.
Wrong again. I suggest you read the convention debates. There was prolonged debate as to whether office holders should be limited to natives alone or how long the foreign born would need to be citizens before holding office. No one ever suggested there be any limitation on natives, which of course meant the same thing a natural born under the common law and pretty much all authority of that era. The framers born in the states clearly thought themselves to be natives and it was pointed out repeatedly the such a native birth requirement would prevent some of the leading men in the convention, the ones not born in the states, from holding office such as Hamilton and Wilson. OF course, no one brough up parentage or Vattel and no one proposed to exclude persons born with dual allegiance. Only place of birth was discussed. Since excluding men like Hamilton and Wilson seemed a little silly after all they had done for the country, it was suggested, by Governor Morris I believe, to make an exception for the foreign born who were citizens at the time of adoption. Thus, the framers seemed to agree with Madison who said that the allegiance that those born prior to the revolution to the state of their birth was transaferred to the new nation. There is a ton of early authority agreeing that the grandfather exception was solely for the foreign born, not the framers generally.
.
For example, the most influential scholar of the period: “It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73 (1833)
.
A few more from a quick google search:
.
“The exception in favor of such persons of foreign birth as were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is now practically extinct. The distinguished patriots who had so faithfully served their adopted country during the revolutionary struggle, and out of respect and gratitude to whom this exception was introduced into the Constitution, have all passed away. No one, therefore, but a natural born citizen can now be elected to the office of President.” Henry Flanders, An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States pg. 170, 1885
.
“The exception to the “natural born” qualification was the Convention’s way of paying an extraordinary compliment to Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, two distinguished members of the Convention who were foreign born. Of course, any other foreign- born citizen having the other qualifications would have been eligible, but the clause was drawn in favor of the two statesmen here mentioned.” Edward Waterman Townsend, Our Constitution: Why and how it was Made – who Made It, and what it is pg 186 (1869)
.
“The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president ; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that ” no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the tune of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president.” George Bancroft, History of the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America pg 346 (1884)
As for Scientist, Ballantine, and the evil Dr Conspiracy . . . this is the first cogent argument and it is welcome.
Is that sweat I see on your brow? I’m just going to let you all stew for a couple days while I get some work done and rest on Sunday . . .
I hope to have an acceptable response for you on Monday.
Somebody hasn’t been paying attention.
It’s not intuitive? What is that supposed to mean in this context? Perhaps you mean that it doesn’t allow the user to use intuition to know about writs and motions which are nowhere mentioned in the case history? When the court docket says that the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute, I take that as a fact. Prove it wrong, if you can.
I hope you also find the ex parte’ communication one attorney I countersued got into the record. He told the judge I carried a gun and he was afraid I was going to shoot him. Well, I found out later he had conspired/colluded with the Plaintiff attorney in order to screw me out of the attorney fees and injunctive relief, which I had asked for, that would have gotten my business back up in a couple months, instead of two years.In the end, that collusion cost the other attorney his law license and fancy law office. He laid low for a couple years until he got a cozy lifetime appointment from the Democrat Party.
You are still unwilling to name names, I see. Tell me the name of the attorney who lost his law license and the docket number of your supposed countersuit, and I’ll check it out.
You may accuse Orly Taitz of not being experienced enough to be filing these cases, but her heart is in the right place. Hemenway and Apuzzo are skilled litigators and still have a chance at success when the political winds change. Leo Donofrio wrote an excellent opinion piece for WND,
That pretty much tells us all we need to know about your legal acumen.
Remember these two irrefutable facts: 1) The framers made only one exception for a son of a British subject to be eligible for the presidency, and 2) a wife married to an alien did not confer her maiden citizenship/nationality to the children.
Nonsense which others here have already refuted.
1. Matthew is most certainly NOT a “prophecy of the end times.” That is Revelation, which was written later, was never attributed to Matthew but to John the Evangelizer, and was a polemic directed against the Roman government of Palestine. You not only are a joke of a paralegal, you’re an ignoramus when it comes to the Bible.
2. Apuzzo is a personal injury lawyer with zero expertise in Constitutional law. Hemenway is a racist whose cases have gone down in flames. And wasn’t Donofrio off running his own religious cult?
Regardless, none of them has won so much as a single case concerning the President’s citizenship for the simple reason that the President was born in Hawaii and is natural born. That isn’t going to change.
3. Please produce proof, in the form of certified medical records, that you a) had Guillan-Barren Syndrome, b) that your case was so severe that it not only forced you withdraw from college but has prevented you from returning to this day, c) that you were offered a full scholarship to an accredited law school that you had to turn down due to medical reasons, and d) that you are still so crippled that you have been unable to return to school. Otherwise, stop whining about your health and do what thousands of genuinely disabled people do every day: attend college, graduate, and get a job.
Wasn’t this a genuine concern up until the 1830’s or thereabouts? I seem to recall reading about efforts to overthrow the early Republic in favor of a monarchy around then. And of course there was the tragic case of Maximilian and Carlotta in Mexico….
It’s not an urban legend, but at first I assumed that this was a criminal case. But it wasn’t a criminal case, it was a domestic restraining order case. This means that there was no state prosecutor present to argue that the husband broke the law against New Jersey’s marital rape law. The judge made an erroneous ruling. as the appellate court pointed out.
I ask again: is this judge an oddity? If so, why wasn’t he removed from the bench according to the reasoning you provided to me
Typically, judges are not removed from the bench simply for making the occasional faulty ruling, however egregious it might be.
This judge allowed the breaking of the law because he didn’t follow the simple notion that you presented.
Technically, the judge didn’t “allow the breaking of the law” because the husband wasn’t facing criminal charges, so he wasn’t acquitted of anything. It appears that the wife never filed a criminal complaint against him. This doesn’t excuse the judge’s ruling, but I doubt that a criminal court judge would have accepted the religious belief defense.
Florida was under Spanish rule and refuge to many anti-American militias and pirate raiders. There was indeed good reason to be nervous.
Maximilian and Carlotta were not chosen by the Mexican people, but were installed in Mexico by French troops under Napoleon III. Constitutional provisions don’t provide protection against superior military force. Leonard claims to have divined the framers intent, yet there is not a single statement made by any of them that the US-born child of a US citizen would be ineligible for the Presidency because the other parent was a non-citizen.
A few months ago I posted a research I did of the citizenship laws of a number of countries. Some require one parent to be a citizen for the child to acquire citizenship. None require both parents to be citizens, including Vattel’s homeland, Swirzerland. As far as i can tell the 2 citizen parent theory was invented out of whole cloth in 2008. Now I wonder why???
And how would the natural born citizenship requirement protect against pirate raids and other hostile attacks?
By the way, the #1 practitioners of piracy in the 17th and 18th century were the American colonies. Several of the colonial governors became very wealthy from their share of pirate treasure.
There is a section in Matthew called ‘the little apocalypse” which has a stylistic similarity to the book of Revelation. It talks about natural signs and terrible events, and is thought to be a commentary on the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, written after the fact and cast into the words of Jesus by the early Christian community.
In the same way, I would contend that the Book of Revelation is also a commentary on the persecution of the early church with thinly veiled references to Rome and Nero.
LOL! I think Leonard is trying to audition for a role in Sven’s latest novel. As if “Barry and the Pirates” needed any further whoppers to stretch credibility…
That pretty much closely mirrors what has been my impression and understanding of those books as well…
Not that I want to diminish the value of your research, but there is a Zanzibar connection here. Vattel’s homeland was not Switzerland, but Prussia. Neuchâtel was an enclave that formed part of Prussia during Vattel’s life. Only after his death did it join the Swiss federation, with the Prussian King remaining the titular head until 1848. Small wonder that Vattel’s ideas about citizenship resembled Prussian law (with the known relevancy for the citizenship of Dwight Eisenhower).
What is really pathetic is that Mr. Daneman probably really believes that we’re sweating what he might say in response. What he might not know is that we had this discussion months ago. When one has read the material, and tried to get into the mindset of the founders, it becomes clear that they considered themselves natural born citizens.
My little teaser about John Jay is just that, a teaser, but Daneman hasn’t even answered my question about that.
It’s actually found in all three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). It’s not the main focus of any of them. And yes, it’s almost certainly a reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, just like Revelation is almost certainly intended as a satire or criticism of Emperor Nero.
Dr . Conspiracy ,
As person with expertise in the issuing of Vital Documents, could you please expound on the fact that if the president does not have his long form at all, that in itself means very little, I was a Marine recruiter and I have said on here before that very few of the numerous individuals I enlisted had their original birth certificate. (even if they did the hospital form was not allowed for them to ship to boot camp with. a COB had to be obtained from the state).I talked to a friend of mine recently, that works at the vital statistics office in Richmond VA, and he says not counting newborns they issue over 2500 Birth Certificates a Month. So I would conclude from that, that there are millions of americans that do not have their long forms, and I bet that if you asked every member of congress to show theIrs, many could not.
I do not have mine I have a COB, at some point my mother had mine, I did not ask her for it because I never needed it, plus I felt it had more sentimental value to her than me, I used a COB to enter the Military,to get a passport, and enter College. When she passed 9 years ago (from a botched heart surgery ) I did not see it in the personal effects she left behind, (not that I was looking for it)
Another point I would like to make on the long form , in my experience many of the docs used to enlist (not ship) did not match the COB and by the military standard the government form (COB) takes presidence over the hospital form, and it was up to the parents or enlistees to get the COB corrected(typical errors were birthdate, hospital name, parents names mispelled, even doctors name )
So my point is they are putting a lot of stock in this long form. a form that many parents may have had, but a form that does not always get into the hands of the child it belongs too, sometimes because they just did not give it to them or becuase it has been lost or has fell a part or is unrecognizable.
Your thoughts please
A Catholic view of Revelation (scroll down to Mass):
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mass.htm#revelation
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. X
Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/110/1100081.htm
(discussing the destruction of Jerusalem, Antichrist and the second coming)
I will stop getting way off the thread topic here after this thought:
(from the homily above)
“But if any man disbelieve the judgments to come, let him look at the things here, at those in the prisons, those in the mines, those on the dunghills, the possessed, the frantic, them that are struggling with incurable diseases, those that are fighting against continual poverty, them that live in famine, them that are pierced with irremediable woes, those in captivity. For these persons would not suffer these things here, unless vengeance and p. 444 punishments were to await all the others also that have committed such sins. And if the rest have undergone nothing here, you ought to regard this very fact as a sign that there is surely something to follow after our departure here. For the self-same God of all would not take vengeance on some, and leave others unpunished, who have committed the same or more grievous offenses, unless He designed to bring some punishments upon them there.”
I have never understood atheists who must know that terrible crimes against humanity have been committed, many unseen, with no accountability. Murders never solved, atrocities committed where no one was punished, any horrible thought one can have. I don’t know how I could handle that thought if I had no belief in God.
My understanding that it is a violation of the law with two forms of relief offered to the victim, civil and criminal. She choose the civil relief route.
***
In 1991, the Legislature found and declared that domestic violence is a serious crime against society. . . .
The New Jersey Domestic Violence Act provides for two forms of relief to a victim of domestic violence: Civil relief, which is in the form of obtaining a restraining order, and criminal relief, which allows a victim to file criminal complaints against the batterer.
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/family/fam-06.htm
3. Definition of Domestic Violence
Domestic violence means the occurrence of one or more of the following criminal offenses upon a person protected under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act:
Homicide N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1 Assault N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1
Terroristic threats N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3 Kidnapping N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1
Criminal Restraint N.J.S.A. 2C:13-2 False imprisonment N.J.S.A. 2C:13-3
Sexual assault N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2
Just because the woman choose to have civil relief does not mean that the law was not broken.
I appreciate this interesting discussion (that is also off topic so I will stop here with this issue.)
Charo, of course not. I don’t think you will find a single regular poster here that would support the notion of forced intercourse, even within the context of marriage.
Nor, in re-reading any of the comments prior was anyone calling YOU sick SFJeff’s statement you quoted was not directed at you, but in response to nutty Leonard, who made an offensive and bigoted statement. Here is the exact exchange, where SFJeff makes this response to Leonard, so you can see the proper context:
Therefore, the issue was a bigot attacking and condemning an entire religion and their holy texts, based on their sick and selective use of a few archaic notions within that book. There was no specific reference made to the situation you stated above.
I am quite disappointed in you, Charo for seeming to make such a similar bigoted and biased leap to judgment as you apparently did by making the leap of logic you did from their words to yours and following it up with this:
In regards to “implementing Sharia law”, my simple and blunt answer is NO.
In response to your Koran statements – let me call you out on that. Why do I have the distinct feeling, like many who make such statements, that you have NEVER actually read the Koran? I’m calling you out on this. I bet you just buy into “offensive” things that others tell you about the Koran which has gotten you all riled up, because you have a propensity to just believe such things when certain sources tell you them, instead of stopping to think things through and look at the world in a broader context.
Does the Koran have such statements? YES. I’m not disputing such things. Once again, just as with our Christian Bible and with many other religions around the world, it is easy to cherry pick passages and quotes to rile people up and point out some of the antiquated practices and beliefs which are codified in such texts that reflect how life was during the times they were written.
The Bible itself is full of such things which seem silly or “barbaric” to our modern sensibilities. That is one of the reasons why even among the very devout, you find very few people who actually practice or follow all such ancient ways and viewpoints within their own documents. In various third-world Muslim countries, you can absolutely point to areas where people’s practices and views still remain in what we would consider the “dark ages.”
Let’s not let that distract from the reality of where we live – the USA and how our laws work to both protect religious freedoms and keep ANY religion’s practices from overrunning our secular society. Muslims have been living in this country just fine under our laws all of this time and there haven’t been any problems, so stop buying into these 9/11 inspired “boogey-man” fears that do nothing but smear an entire religion and set of cultures based on the actions of their most extreme elements.
In this very country we all live in and love, the notion of women’s rights and equality is a fairly recent one, so you are viewing life from a “modern” perspective and ignoring how women were treated and viewed even here in the decades and centuries prior, where women were viewed as less equal to men and even expected to be “subservient” to their husband’s needs and desires.
Let’s not forget which religion in this country was often used to espouse and back-up such views – CHRISTIANITY. Even today there exist quite a number of people in our nation, particularly in more fundamentalist Christian sects, that think a woman’s proper place is taking care of her man’s home and desires. Our own past is rife with examples of where women were expected to “put out” for their husband when he wanted it.
So again, should we all agree that such a situation is unacceptable and deplorable in today’s society in this country? YES. But let’s not go trying to shamelessly put the blame on other religions when there most certainly are Christians within this nation today that still cling to such barbaric notions.
So let’s get back to examining the actual example case you cited:
WRONG. Look at the case you cited – it was not dealing with a CRIMINAL case, which is the definition of “breaking the law”, so it was not relevant to the “simple” notion that I presented.
This was one of those difficult domestic cases, which are very difficult for judges to rule on, as they require the state to get involved and decipher what actually happened within people’s domestic private lives. In such situations, the facts can become “murky” and it is easier for a judge to “get it wrong”, as the evidence is much more subjective. Just as divorce proceedings can be very hard to determine what really happened and often only have “he said / she said” evidence to go on”.
Rickey already covered it well, so I’ll just restate his words here:
So, bottom line, your example neither contradicts my statement that a “faith’s practices does not give one freedom to violate criminal laws to commit crimes, particularly federal crimes” NOR is it a viable analogy to use as an excuse to espouse targeted bigotry against an entire faith that differs from your own.
i of course cannot speak for all atheists, but this one works hard to not engage in what i believe to be unhelpful wishful thinking. i believe that in order to develop real solutions to our very real problems it is vital that everyone be ready and willing to look all truths, however terrible, in the eye. the idea that a great many crimes have and continue to pass unpunished is one of those truths, along with the truth that there is essentially nothing i, certainly as an individual, can do to remedy that. the hunger for justice is a strong and understandable one, and the frustration fed by justice unfulfilled is very real. i “handle that thought” by accepting my limitations and focusing on changing the little things that i can in fact change and not inventing vast unseen cosmic forces to change the things that i cannot.
Good links Charo.
Although I would like to point out for any who don’t understand or who are not Catholic, that the Catholic faith is NOT monolithic in how our Masses take place or are presented, even though we have defined and rigid structure, flowing from the Pope down. Particularly in American Catholicism.
Therefore, these links provide an excellent example of how Mass uses various quotes from the different sections of the Bible text to share good life lessons for what people can learn from that to apply to the situations in their own lives. Our priests do the same with all books from the Bible, not just the few books provided in these examples.
However, not all Catholic priests might use the examples provided or even use them in the context listed at these cites. Religious texts, their meanings and the lessons to be taken from various passages vary even within the Catholic faith and the priests that preach from them. So, this is just one person’s interpretations of how to apply these passages. Further, under the definition of Roman Catholicism, as the authorship of those websites doesn’t directly come from the Pope/Vatican, they cannot be claimed as the authoritative and definitive Catholic position on such things; merely a good general example.
Finally, I should point out before others do that yes, the statements at Charo’s links are focused on using specific statements within the text to make points, and are not authorship about the meaning and basis for the fuller and broader contexts and meanings of that particular book in its totality. In a sense, it is admittedly a type of “cherry picking” from the texts, but with benign purpose.
HUH???
Charo, I fail to understand the conclusions you’ve drawn here. That seems like just a biased and uninformed opinion of atheists view of the world.
Where the heck do you get the notion that atheists or other non-religious types don’t believe in accountability? There is nothing that supports such a ludicrous notion!
Our entire law system is based on accountability, especially for “crimes”. Our system of law is a SECULAR one. In other words – laws created by people to protect society and civilization and people’s individual rights based on simple and clear SECULAR reasons for what types of behavior are wrong and criminal.
Morals, a sense of proper justice and accountability and ethical behavior are beliefs shared across all types of people, both the religious and non-religious. Atheists (etc) in general want to see criminals caught and punished for crimes just as much as everyone else. The only distinction that I can come up with is that that many of the non-religious believe that once you die, that’s it. If anything, that would lead many to be MORE concerned with justice in this life, if there is nothing beyond that.
I agree with what you are saying, as the points you’ve made go directly to the heart of the matter here. As you pointed out SHE chose the civil relief route.
There is nothing that the law can do in this particular situation if the victim either fails to or refuses to press criminal charges.
A prosecutor could only press criminal charges (on behalf of the state) in a situation where the evidence existed to allow them to a strong enough case of criminal violation, despite the victim’s wishes.
Well said. Thanks for sharing.
I never said that atheists don’t believe in accountability. There can be no complete accountability here. There will never be perfect justice here, as much as all of us sane people want that. I take comfort in knowing that those who have been wronged WILL be avenged. An atheist cannot take that same kind of comfort. A parent whose child has been kidnapped and murdered or never to be seen again, with the perpetrator never caught is a situation that comes to mind. Another situation is cases where those have been wrongfully accused and punished. There will be final justice for those who believe in God. I would never believe that just because a person is an atheist, that person doesn’t CARE!
And it was a criminal offense with a civil remedy. There are potential criminal consequences for failure to obey a PFA order so SHE did not make a bad choice; the judge did. If she did not appeal because of funds, fear, whatever, Sharia Law would have been in effect for her, even though it was the civil remedy that initially failed for her. I haven’t heard of any other cases of this sort, but Sharia Law has been at issue in Britain. I don’t know about the accuracy of this survey, but here it is:
“A recent survey by the Centre for Social Cohesion found 40 per cent of Britain’s Muslim students want the introduction of sharia law in the UK, while 33 per cent want a worldwide Islamic sharia-based government.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055764/Islamic-sharia-courts-Britain-legally-binding.html#ixzz0zycmxCph
Perhaps Britain is not so “Islamophobic” as the United States and can accept the incorporation of Sharia Law more easily than would occur here.
There’s not much to add to what you said. There are four kinds of birth certificates:
1) Hospital-issued certificates given to parents when a child is born. These are referred to in the industry as “souvenirs” and aren’t legally good for much of anything. You can’t get a passport with one or enroll in Social Security.
2) Original birth certificate. This is what the hospital (or others) sends to the jurisdiction. More often than not, this document is titled “Certificate of Live Birth.) The public never sees these originals. They are on plain paper, by the way, not security paper.
3) Certified photocopy copy of (2). Popularly called a “long form”, these copies onto security paper are issued and certified by the jurisdiction. This is what the birthers are demanding from Obama.
4) Certified abstract of (2). This is a certificate containing information from (2), but not an image of it, issued and certified by the jurisdiction. This is what is popularly called a COLB or “short form” although those terms are imprecise.
Certified abstract copies are the most common form of “birth certificate” today since virtually all birth registrations in the United States are now electronic reports from the hospital and there is no “original” to photocopy.
I dispute that finding comfort in the certainty of vengence is all that common among Christians.
Not vengence so much as justice, in both directions (rewarding also).
There is something incredibly annoying about you. Perhaps it is history.
The question is whether what you “know” is actually true. You may believe that those who do wrong in this life will suffer in Hell. Hindus may believe that they will be re-incarnated into this world as a cockroach. I see no hard evidence to support either of those beliefs, not to say one is more likely to be true than the other. So, I am left to accept the strong possibility that there is nothing after this life beyond the grave. You might find that hard to live with and so choose to believe otherwise. I am left with where the objective evidence leads. .
This is heavy stuff — and somewhat OT. I myself am somewhat of an agnostic.
If we define God as the creator of this universe, there may be a God, and then, there may not be.
If there is a God, he may not at all be the God of the Bible, but that of the Greek, Norse, Papuans — or if there are aliens out there, Andromedans.
As the great French playwright Marcel Pagnol wrote in “CESAR”, have you considered, charo, that after your death, you may appear before the all-powerful Buluku of the west african tribe of the Fon, and how do you plan to communicate that you’re a good person exactly?
Alternatively, who says that God cares at all about what we do. As Stephen King outlines in INSOMNIA, for one who may see the very far future, there may be a God’s Plan somewhere, sometime (a notion Teilhard de Chardin would have liked), but it doesn’t have to involve us here minutely in the present. Do we care about this or that specific Gaul warrior who lived or died at Alesia? Do we care if he led a honest life or was a scumbag? Why should a hypothetical god cares about Jeffrey Dahmer or Mother Teresa?
I’m open to every possibility, but of all the versions of God, the cross between Santa Claus and a School Principal worshiped by modern-day American Christians seems, to me at least, the least believable of all.
well I am hearing that the birthers and some GOP candidates in many states are pushing for legislature requiring proof on natural born citizenship to run in the next presidential election, are they going to say the long form is required despite its unrealistic availability to all candidates or will the COB be good enough? Can they legaly require the long form(this could be somewhat discrimatory based on how many don’t have a long form and could affect some of their own prime players) when all current governments regs say the COB is good enough in every instance where a birth certification is required.
In the lakin case would there defense have been better served by trying to prove that the COB was a fake since they do not accept it as proof of the presidents place of birth?
I look forward to the universal restoration of all things.
We have free will to believe as we choose. Christians are ideally supposed to strive to bring others to the truth for the others’ good, through charity. I am not the ideal Christian, and this is certainly not the time and place for dialogue. I have a hard time letting a comment stand without responding back when I know I should stop. My faith is more than just the above topic.
The reason why I stressed the idea of justice so much is that when I was in 7th grade and first learned about the horrors of the Holocaust, and then when I was a little older, slave ships, I was profoundly affected. Now that I am a parent, I am devastated for parents who have lost their children because of a sick molester, parents who imagine their child’s last moments of terror. These kind of events have always triggered strong emotion for me. I don’t continually dwell day and night on these matters, but they have affected my outlook. What I believe doesn’t make truth; either Christianity is true or it is not. I believe it is.
I will be judged according to my actions. Responding on OCT rather than attending to what I should is probably not going to help me.
My father was an agnostic at best for 82 years. He agreed to be baptized prior to death. He was strong willed and made a free choice, just the same as when he he communicated that it was okay for me to turn off the ventilator.
They can require proof. All that will happen is Obama will show the exact same form that has been online for the last 2 years, the Secretary of State will say, “This proves that Obama was born in Hawaii, and therefore a Natural Born Citizen.” Then, he will ignore all the mail trying to “educate” him on the secret meaning of Natural Born Citizenship, or that he doesn’t actually understand what the COLB means.
Constitutionally, this would fall is the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Full Faith and Credit clause says: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
This means a State cannot unilaterally declare another state’s records to be insufficient, and demand more proof. Congress can do that, but a state cannot. Basically, all Obama would do is need to present the same exact document that has been available for 2 years, and show up. If the State says that it’s not good enough to prove place of birth, then he can sue, and basically force the court to either say that it is (which the court will), or to say that it’s not. Of course, no Secretary of State would be stupid enough to deny that a COLB actually proves place of birth.
Not really. The President’s place of birth is irrelevant to the Lakin case. If the Defense was right, and the President was secretly born in Kenya, the de facto officer doctrine still applies. That means that the order is still valid, and that Lakin still disobeyed the direct order. This means that he’s guilty of what he’s charged of. It’s a bit like someone being on trial for murder, and claiming that he’s not guilty because he didn’t kill the person with a gun. He killed him with a knife.
We must strive to bring the perpretators to justice in this world, but need to accept the reality that in some cases that will be impossible. Believing they will meet justice after death might be comforting, but if that is untrue (as I strongly suspect) then it is a false comfort. Nothing necessarily wrong your taking comfort in a fantasy, but I can’t buy into it.
You can believe what you want. Believing Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Wiccans, cargo cultists and so on believe they are onto the truth just as fervently as you do. As far as I can see, the likelihood that they are correct is just as high as the odds that you are. I will reserve my belief pending actual empirical proof, which I must say is MIA.
And you know this is what happened? You are so far gone inn your own belief of how things should be that you can’t see how far out of line you are.
My faith is more than just that, as I said, and I am not trying to, nor can I, change anyone’s mind about what they believe.
i agree with you 100% , the presidents NBC status has nothing to do with LAKINS DEFENSE, jUST STILL the ironic thing is that the president has shown the same document as Lakin, and lakin does not doubt his own COB, so it would make more sense if he had proof that the Presidents COB was fake. then I couls almost understand why he did not believe the president was born in Hawaii as the COB attests,
Lakin’s attorney claims (falsely) that Hawaiian birth Certificates of Live Birth don’t mean that the holder was born in Hawaii. I presume Lakin shares this misinformed view.
Can we not get personal here?
The victim did not have to choose between the two. She could have asked for a restraining order AND filed a criminal complaint. It is possible that there was insufficient evidence to get a criminal conviction, but we don’t know enough about the case to know for sure.
Just because the woman choose to have civil relief does not mean that the law was not broken.
And I never suggested that the law was not broken. My point is that the judge who ruled on the restraining order had no authority to convict the husband and punish him for his actions, because the husband was not facing criminal charges. All the judge could do was rule on whether to issue the restraining order.
And it was a criminal offense with a civil remedy. There are potential criminal consequences for failure to obey a PFA order so SHE did not make a bad choice; the judge did. If she did not appeal because of funds, fear, whatever, Sharia Law would have been in effect for her, even though it was the civil remedy that initially failed for her.
No one suggested that the wife made a BAD choice, only that she made a choice not to file a criminal complaint. The burden of proof in a criminal case is, of course, much higher than the burden of proof in a civil matter. We have no idea if there was sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction. However, if the case had proceeded to a criminal trial, the dynamics would have been entirely different. It would have been handled by a criminal prosecutor and it would been tried by a criminal courts judge.
“A recent survey by the Centre for Social Cohesion found 40 per cent of Britain’s Muslim students want the introduction of sharia law in the UK, while 33 per cent want a worldwide Islamic sharia-based government.”
I don’t seen any significance to that. The same article states “The Ministry of Justice said: ‘Sharia law is not part of the law of England and Wales, and the Government has no intention of making any change that would conflict with British laws and values.'” And Sharia law will never become law in the United States as long as we have the Constitution. One outrageous ruling in a New Jersey civil case – a ruling which was overturned on appeal – doesn’t change that.
It’s okay whatever. I don’t want Doc thinking I am playing the victim card. I should have never shared anything personal. Also, events can never be conveyed as they actually occurred, the phrase “You had to have been there” is apt.
Rickey: The victim did not have to choose between the two. She could have asked for a restraining order AND filed a criminal complaint.
Maybe she was advised otherwise. We don’t know.
But that did involve finding a violation of the Domestic Violence Act.
I think the concern is that women can be treated differently under this kind of arbitration system. I read a couple of articles, but one of them gave a case where the daughters inherited half as much as the sons under an estate. Also, I believe all of the women dropped their criminal complaints. Intimidation could be a factor.
I was surprised the judge who made the ruling wasn’t spanked for that decision. It cost the woman time, energy, emotion and maybe money (depending on funding) to appeal Because there are those who want to be culturally sensitive, the issue (or a related one) may occur again.
Thank you for your response.
This was in the wrong place. It should be after the article on Sharia Law in Britain.
Also, this should not be in italics.
I was assuming the same, but when I looked at the site I linked above, it sounds kind of confusing. There is a committee or something involved. I don’t remember the details, but it’s at the link.
I was quoting out of order and things got all screwed up.
The backspace key is your friend. I have removed the rest of the exchange also, starting, I hope, where it went out of bounds.
PLEASE IGNORE ABOVE RESPONSE
I need to revise the whole comment- everything is all out of order!
Maybe she was advised otherwise. We don’t know.
That would be sad for women who do choose to file criminal complaints based upon their own testimony.
I was assuming the same, but when I looked at the site I linked above, it sounds kind of confusing. There is a committee or something involved. I don’t remember the details, but it’s at the link.
I think the concern is that women can be treated differently under this kind of arbitration system. I read a couple of articles, but one of them gave a case where the daughters inherited half as much as the sons under an estate. Also, I believe all of the women dropped their criminal complaints. Intimidation could be a factor.
I was surprised the judge who made the ruling wasn’t spanked for that decision. It cost the woman time, energy, emotion and maybe money (depending on funding) to appeal Because there are those who want to be culturally sensitive, the issue (or a related one) may occur again.
Forgot this one
But that did involve finding a violation of the Domestic Violence Act.
Aye aye, cap’n.
While, as an atheist, I agree with Majority Will that some of Charo’s comments have been annoying, I thought that Sef’s comment to her was really beyond the pale. To say such things about someone’s deceased parent is callous and reprehensible. From your other posts here I would have expected better of you.
Charo,
I’m sorry you had to endure such a cruel attack. My sincere condolences on the loss of your father and my thanks for sharing such a personal story.
Charo, and that is the whole point. WE DON’T KNOW. What bothers me about your posts on this issue (which all started with you as well) is that you used this single, murky DOMESTIC case example where we don’t have all of the details to try to draw unsupportable conclusions to justify bigotry against an entire faith and their holy book and to try to manufacture the boogeyman of “Sharia Law” being implemented, which is completely untrue.
It comes across as conjecture and speculation being used to stretch irrelevant issues to justify religious bigotry, which I feel is wrong.
I agree with the points that Rickey made on this issue.
I have not seen anyone here argue that it is wrong for a husband to force himself on his wife. It is wrong regardless of what their reason or their religion is – whether that be Christian, Muslim or otherwise. So I don’t know what you keep trying to quibble about on here, except to come up with excuses to cover for and justify your own personal biases and prejudices against a faith that differs from your own.
I set myself up and should have known better. Thanks for your comments, well, most of them 🙂
The point was that a judge didn’t see that. The correction had to be made on appeal. I would rather just drop the subject.
Actually, the description I read of the marital relationship in the Muslim faith has a beautiful component: a spiritual connection as well as physical. I have already told you that I wear a chapel veil to church and so can relate to the hijab. But, I am veering into the personal and violating my own common sense again…
I agree, but I know that there are plenty of good people who hold that view. I don’t see how one can logically hold that view, but then, who am I.
Nothing I said implied that anyone was inferior. I think more intelligent people have a harder time with God than ones not so blessed, or gifted if you prefer. There are plenty of saint “mensa “members but I think I relate more to and would like to be more like say Juan Diego (have you seen accounts the cloak that still exists?)
not to imply that Juan Diego was an idiot, but just a simple man
This.
My conclusion is that it doesn’t make much point to live your life as if their is an afterworld.
To do so, at least following the Christian tradition, means that you can do what ever the heck you want to do and repent on your death bed, and have no fear of ‘rotting in hell’.
If you just work on doing the best you can in the life that you know you have, the afterlife, if any, will work itself out.
Using an unknown, unlikely, afterlife as motivation for this life is weak. It is the opposite of taking accountability; it is passing the buck.
Well, just about all religions have many beautiful components right alongside ones that we consider archaic or “not so beautiful” by modern standards. I believe that the strength of these religions and their long history truly stems from all the beautiful parts and yet it is the “ugly parts” that are used or focused on when cherry-picking to either justify bad actions or to point out the “flaws” in someone’s religion. I try to look at such texts in a broader whole, which usually leads me to staying with a historical and cultural perspective. Anyways, I’m glad that you were able to read about and appreciate one of the beautiful components of their faith instead of only hearing about some of the more controversial and non “modern” aspects.
Also – I’m glad you brought up both the chapel veil & the hijab. The whole area of religious head covering is one in which the issues we’ve been discussing on where the line between religious freedom and secular law is great example of where heated debate on the topic is playing out these days, particularly in Europe (I think there were recent rulings in Lupin’s France on the topic).
I think there are some legitimate security concerns that can come into play and trump religious freedoms in this situation. When a head covering or veil so masks a face as to make it unrecognizable, I think there is legitimate concern. However, I think that is the limit and I’m against the banning of headscarves in public places (or schools) in general – unless it truly covers the face from sight. I’m fully fine with any full-face covering that is see-through or relatively sheer, but I think there is legitimate issue with a few of the more extreme Islamic head coverings, beyond the typical hajib styles. For me, the boshiya, burqa, and ninja-like niqÄb cross this line and I think bans on wearing such in public places, schools and businesses can be justified. But not for anything less than that.
Even though I went to more traditional “post Vatican II” Catholic Churches back in the day, I’m familiar with the chapel veil (of which there are many styles), as there are a number of Catholic women that always continued to wear them. Personally, I’ve always enjoyed seeing them – many of the styles are quite pretty and classy. If I remember correctly, the practice is based on 1 Corinthians and for awhile was standard practice during the early 20th century for Latin Rites as part of the old Code of Canon Law that preceded Vatican II.
You and I are in complete agreement on this one.
It really saddens me when I hear that response from the people that hold that view, particularly because they are often quite boastful and seem “proud” of that particular aspect. I’m for responsibility and accountability…so I just don’t get it when I hear people say things like that either. And honestly, I sort of lose a bit of respect for folks when they say stuff like that. Like you, a lot of these are people that I’ve known well, often for years and otherwise think fondly of…but I just can’t appreciate the “get out of jail card free” view of life nor what I consider to be utterly missing the point of any of the lessons from the parables of Jesus’ life.
A convergent point that Muslims have with Catholics is the recitation of certain prayers at set times of day. Priests are supposed to say the Breviary or Liturgy of the Hours, but laypeople are also permitted to say them as well. I am more familiar with the current version, but my husband prefers the Latin prayers. There is going to be a new translation coming out soon to make it easier. I am teaching my kids Latin so this will be a good exercise for me.
I hope you won’t be offended if I recommend to you the story of Father John Corapi. Wiki doesn’t always give the best slant on things. I think I saw a condensed story on youtube that lasts about 10 minutes. Maybe in the next year when you get a few moments, you might consider listening. He has a unique way of speaking.
I much prefer to end things on a positive note rather than acrid, second definition applicable. (I was trying to think of the word that I wanted and this was the closest I could find.)
Thank you for clarifying that.
Just try to be aware that sometimes your statements come across as more of a knock against different views than just sharing your own personal beliefs. I guess that is easy for all of us to do. After all, by definition, what we believe is what we think is right, so it is actually easier to view differing opinions and beliefs as “less right” than simply different or to remind ourselves that while we hold our own beliefs to be the correct one, there is always the possibility that we’ve gotten it (at least partially) wrong.
I agree with the rest of your points too.
Other than that, I just wanted to reply back on your question about Juan Diego and the cloak. First of all – kudos for the reference! Ah…the legend of good old Juan Diego and Our Lady of Guadalupe. LOL! Without him, where would Mexican Catholicism be today? Definitely nowhere near the popularity it has on the populace there. I’ve always jokingly referred to him as the “Patron Saint” of Mexico. (Didn’t he actually become a saint or get canonized recently? I think I remember hearing something about it not long before Pope JPII passed away).
So, getting back to your question of the whole “miracle of the cloak” as part of his legend. Well, my answer is that I find the entire story, including even the existence of Juan Diego himself to be suspect…and more myth and legend IMHO. (Albeit a very important one for the growth and conversion of indigenous Mexican peoples to Catholocism). He supposedly lived around the time of the Conquistadors and was a native who converted and spoke with an apparition of the Virgin Mary. Yet the historical record of him and his legendary “miracles” doesn’t start up until a century after he lived…. that stuff always makes me highly skeptical.
I agree.
Thanks for the response Charo. I always appreciate our conversations, even when we have times of taking issue with each others statements or otherwise disagree.
I think its really cool that you are teaching your kids Latin and you can definitely feel free to recommend any things that you want me to look at further. Since you cautioned me from going to the wiki source on this one, I’ll hold off on that or google and wait to get the video link from you that you mentioned first and reserve judgment until after I’ve seen that.
I too always prefer to end things on a positive note and hence why I value having our detailed back & forth until we get there. So far, that’s worked out pretty well and been well worth the conversation time, IMHO. So in other words, “thank you”.
🙂
You can go ahead with wiki too. I just watched the video and it really is condensed. It starts at the end of his younger days. There is a longer one I saw available, but that depends on your interest level. It is a conversion story, but I don’t want you to think I am trying to convert you. Many people have appreciated Father Corapi for his very direct approach.
duh, forgot the link. This is the short one which really skips the details of his story
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=father+john+corapi&btnG=Google+Search#q=father+john+corapi&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=eNV&sa=G&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&prmd=iv&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=9rCWTKjpO8WqlAep7aWnCg&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CEAQqwQwAw&fp=7b3e9e0669ddb0a1
(wow, that’s a long link)
http://en.gloria.tv/?media=23129
(a little grainy but longer and more detailed- it is his life story that is gripping-I have only watched a few minutes, but I have heard his story on a different venue and assume it is told just as well)
Back at ya! (That’s what I say to the kiddos)
Just saw this. How about St. Francis then? If he didn’t exist, millions of people have been ripped off buying those statues for the garden!
Thanks.
I’ve copied & pasted the 2 links you sent me in another file, so I won’t lose them and can get back to them as soon as I have the time. Out of curiosity, on the topic of the chapel veil, as I mentioned, I’ve seen various styles – from ones that looked hand woven and thicker to very lacy fancy ones. Which style do you wear? Do you have a link to a pic of your preferred style, such as from the place you buy yours (or do you make your own?)
I promised a response to Scientist and Dr. Conspiracy who claimed they proved that the ‘citizen of the U.S. at the time of adoption’ claue applies to anyone with foreign alienage worthy of the office of presidency.
It is 2000-words, so I posted it at http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/my-response-to-obama-conspiracy/
Questions have been raised concerning my health. In May of 2005 I went from a long distance athlete to barely able to walk . . . in the course of two weeks of illness. I am much improved now, but my visceral organs were compromised, e.g., heart, bladder, kidneys, digestive system . . . maybe various glands as well.
The illness was due to my extraordinary physical conditioning ‘ramping up’ my immune system, which was then ‘tricked’ by an antigen. My own immune system went out of control, eating away at my own nervous system until the doctors ‘tricked’ my autoimmune system to think it had produced more than enough phagocytes . . . that required a week in ICU with daily Immunoglobulin treatments at $1500 a dose.
Due to my years of physical conditioning, I am still stronger than many younger men . . . but even after five years recovering my health is still the primary work each day.
If any of you respond on Monday, or even this week, then that is proof you haven’t read the numerous citations and links offered as proof and foundation for my conclusions of law.
The best known legal minds commenting on Natural Born Citizenship are probably Jill Pryor (Yale) and Karen Herlihy (Kent State). However, their focus was on conflating Native-Born citizens with Natural Born Citizens out of fairness and the popular abuse of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Any case law dicta or naturalization law statute you try to apply to making Obama, a son of a British subject, eligible to the presidency is an unconstitutional revision of Article II. Only the son of a U.S. citizen father is eligible to the presidency . . . Period.
I have a stiff black one that I ordered from a site, but I don’t care for it. Sometimes I wear a pink one that is more like the black lace one that I lost. (when I got engaged, my future husband told me that he didn’t want to hear the word “lost” 🙂 There used to be a Catholic shop close by, but the owner suddenly died from pancreatic cancer, and his wife choose to close that store. I haven’t looked for awhile but in the past, there hasn’t been much on the internet. I go to a quasi-parish, and people drive from all over the Diocese to attend the traditional Latin Mass. I see various styles from other women so I know they are available somewhere! A Korean friend gave my daughter a beautiful sheer white one with embroidered flowers. I want to get me one of those!
Goodnight,
charo
Hi Charo,
These two links are just for you:
http://www.catholiccompany.com/chapel-veils-c2236/?aid=117&gclid=CLTrtvaTlaQCFZpN5QoduVOTLA
http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&biw=1148&bih=667&gbv=2&q=catholic%20chapel%20veil&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=b5-WTKWhEIH68AbCpbyNDA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&ved=0CBwQ_AU
🙂
But the judge made that finding based upon a “a preponderance of the evidence.” That’s not sufficient for a criminal conviction, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In any event, a civil court judge can be a fact finder, but he can’t convict anyone of a criminal offense.
That would be sad for women who do choose to file criminal complaints based upon their own testimony.
There has to be more evidence than just a woman’s testimony. I don’t believe that it is possible to get a rape conviction, whether marital rape or otherwise, without some forensic evidence. In the case of marital rape, it may also require evidence of force – bruises, etc.
I have no reason to doubt the woman in the New Jersey case, but false allegations of rape are not unheard of. I would be very uncomfortable with seeing a man arrested for rape SOLELY on the word of a woman.
After reviewing the article it must be said that in 1936, the Cable Act was repealed. There are no current laws that support the statement that “only sons of citizen fathers are eligible to be president,” or any variation on that.
I wouldn’t. I would be very uncomfortable with seeing a man CONVICTED of rape SOLELY on the word of a woman, but not arrested. Any allegation of rape should be vigorously investigated and if the DA finds it credible enough to arrest and try the alleged rapist based only on the testimony of the woman, I’m fine with letting the jury sort it out. However false allegations of rape should also be prosecuted (such as the Duke Lacrosse incident) since (as was seen in the aforementioned incident) very real damage is done to people who are falsely accused of rape (which, I note, cost the DA Mike Nifong in the Duke case his law license and added a criminal contempt conviction to his resume although the accuser was never charged).
…And I just saw your post…sandwiched in between the others. LOL!
By the garden reference, I assume you mean St. Francis of Assisi, founder of the Franciscan Monks and the “Mother Teresa” of his time. He most definitely is a real historical figure. There is much in the records about him and his family background, as his family was well off and living in what remained of “civilized” parts back then. Personally, I’ve always found him to be one of the most inspiring and fascinating figures of the Middle Ages. Many today could learn from the wisdom he had and how he his compassion and devotion led him to really try to follow the messages of Jesus about forsaking material goods and taking care of the less fortunate and the environment. He did many great real things and the impact of his efforts lives on to this day. For whatever reason, Catholicism seems to want “mysticism”, so I consider any of the “miracle” stuff attributed to him to be embellishments that grew with the telling and a product of folklore designed to fit the “miracle” requirements deemed necessary for rewarding someone with sainthood.
to: Another Bird . . . Great! Then U.S. wives of alien husbands no longer have U.S. citizenship. Great call.
“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]
BTW, I was born and raised Jewish, but self-converted to Christianity in 1977.
Thanks Charo!
I just watched the 10 min one & some portions of the longer one, then read the Wikipedia entry on him too. (I too find it ironic that the shorter clip had such a long link and the hour long clip had such a short link…LOL!)
I like his speaking tone and his personal story of redemption and conversion very much. Coming back from hardship and making something of yourself and striving for the betterment of others is one of the traditional great American paths that makes this country so great. (I also thought he looked a bit like British actor Patrick Stewart, BTW). I may not agree with all of his positions (as I personally chose not to be a practicing Catholic long ago …and only still consider myself one from a “cultural” perspective” – I simply disagree with many positions and actions of the Pope and the Church, so I don’t feel its right to continue practicing as such).
The only thing I was disappointed to see in his Wikipedia info was that it sounds like he’s recently started to get quite political in his preaching, which I something I think is wrong and has no place in American society. I strongly think that those who preach should stay out of trying to influence politics and respect the separations between church and state).
The twisted conclusions you chose to draw from information just boggles the mind…
Fortunately for the world, you have no impact on US law or how it is applied. You can continue to espouse your “novel” views all you want but no court or real lawyer has wasted their time taking up your birther positions. Other than casting your vote in 2012, you have no practical recourse and are wasting your time with this nonsense.
Not if he is not born on American soil he isn’t.
What are you trying to say here? That some folks argued against allowing non-Christians to hold office? So what? They lost the arguement.
This is what made it into the Constitution:
The Founders of the country and the authors of the Constitution didn’t want religion to have any place in the workings of the government. Period.
It doesn’t matter that a minority argued that there should be a religious test – that argument lost. It also doesn’t matter if most of them considered themselves religious and Christians or that their faith informed their ideology when writing the Constitution because they also considered religion to have no place in Government (Article VI), and Government to have no place in Religion (1st Amendment).
Agreed. I was thinking “prosecuted and convicted,” so I mis-spoke. Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem. I was living in the Durham area (after getting my PhD from Duke) during the whole lacrosse team mess – it was an example of the distinction between arrested and convicted on a woman’s word in a rape case that I doubt anyone living in the area could ignore…
I’m trying to follow your hastily thrown together document, but I have some question about attribution. The quote from Thomas Jefferson — when and where did he say that? Also the Alexander Morse quote? Secretary of State William H. Seward quote? Please update your article to show links to the sources.
The case of Gallatin doesn’t appear at your link. The passage at that link introduces the letter then tables it. I read a few pages going forward and didn’t come across the actual debate and resolution. Can you provide the correct link?
You say Barak Obama is a citizen of Indonesia by derivative naturalization — can you explain what that means? My understanding of that term would require his mother or father to have naturalized, and that marriage didn’t automatically change a woman’s citizenship after 1922.
Also, you have provided few references and links to source documents. Can you double check that you posted your final article and not just your preliminary notes? There’s no logical flow to your article, you jump around, you have duplicated 2 paragraphs, and you leave thoughts hanging. I’d prefer to think that you have merely pasted the wrong draft, and not that you are expecting to sway us with this version.
I AM interested in seeing your final arguments.
Yes, I’d like to understand that too. Are you trying to claim that some obscure U.S. Law considers Obama to be an Indonesian citizen because his mother lived there for a few years with him?
I would have thought that Indonesia has the right to decide who are citizens of Indonesia. It has been shown that under Indonesian law it is impossible for Obama to have become a citizen of that country.
Aren’t you the petulant child that posted his “last post” several posts ago?
Are you a pathological liar or just desperate for attention?
“Only the son of a U.S. citizen father is eligible to the presidency . . . Period.”
Wow- surprising no one bothered to mention that to Sarah Palin or Geraldine Ferraro- or Hilary Clinton.
Or my civics teacher.
Or the writers of textbooks for the last 100 years.
The law in question that removed American women citizenship was repealed. It was removed from the books of American law. That was a sad part of American history, but no the less only history.
There is no religious test for anyone to run for public office in America, that is article 6 of the US Constitution “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
You sound clinically insane, and this confirms it.
Actually found the case…and it comes down to the fact that the judge did mess up the mens rea, reading “knowingly” to require criminal intent (actually the judge totally screwed the pooch on just about everything in his order) . I think you should be more concerned in these cases should be more about judges misreading the law than apply Sharia law. The same result would have happend if the case was about a college kid who thought it was ok to ply a girl with alcohol to have sex with her.
I don’t need to read your article to see that, like a typical birther, you have ignored a direct request and failed to provide certified copies of medical records proving that you ever had a medical condition severe enough to prevent you from finishing your undergraduate degree, let alone keep you from returning to college to this day. Absent this, I can only assume that you have something to hide, like flunking out of college rather than taking medical leave.
Put up or shut up.
Leonard has a big problem. He is like someone arguing that the atom is indivisible based on Aristotle and blithely ignoring the work of modern particle physics. Leonard wishes to pretend that only white Christian males have rights, that the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, women’s rights, etc. never happened. But you see, Leonard, in the law and in history, just like in science, later discoveries and refinements supercede earlier errors. All your misquotes of the long dead, who are unable to defend themseleves against your perversion of their ideas, don’t change what the law is today. Your best hope is a time machine so that you can go back to the Middle Ages.
Once again, you, like your fellow birthers demonstrate your ideological kinship with Bin Laden and the Iranian mullahs. Deny all you want, you, sir, are a fundamentalist Moslem.
There’s no such thing as “self-conversion.” Mr. Daneman might have decided to become a Christian in 1977 (in which case he’s pretty long in the tooth to be an undergraduate studying pre-law in 2005, but I digress), but he would have been baptized by a minister or priest, almost certainly after a period of study to make sure that the conversion was valid and not a whim. What he probably means is “I came to this conclusion on my own and sought out a church instead of being approached by a missionary,” but given his use of a non-standard term, it’s hard to say.
Oh, BTW – just Googled it, and that Jefferson quote is found only on birther sites and right-wing blogs. I think our buddy Leonard cribbed it from WND.
Leonard is ignoring the following quote from Jefferson, which he wrote in 1813, “One day this great Nation will be led by the child of an African man and a European woman, born on a tropical Pacific island’. I used to live in Charlottesville, VA and the quote is well known in those parts.
That is a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my view and the point of discussion. I don’t know if Daneman is making an intentional straw man argument, or is just not paying attention to what he reads.
The “citizen at the time” exception means exactly what it literally says, with the proviso that “citizen of the United States” includes those who where citizens under the Articles of Confederacy, not just under the Constitution.
The reason, as documented by Scientist from historical authorities, for the clause was to allow American patriots born overseas (e.g. Alexander Hamilton) but were citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted to be president also.
All of that, however, is an aside. The contention I make is that George Washington was a natural born citizen of the United States and that his father was a British subject his entire life.
Your response is hopelessly muddled, for example, it wasn’t I that “Googled” quotes.
However, let this be a lesson to the rest of you: folks like Daneman (and Apuzzo) will take any snarking remark you make and make it the centerpiece of the argument against you.
Daneman, of course, posts his response on his own web site, so that he can control the replies through moderation (been there). It would be a complete waste of time to reply over there, although I did briefly comment:
Since my sole assertion is that the “at the time” clause has never been required, and that George Washington was a natural born citizen, and Daneman’s response doesn’t even mention George Washington, I don’t see how it is a response at all.
Well I cannot find it on the extensive, but by no means exhaustive list of Jefferson Quotes at Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government.
Nor can I find any reference to any such Jeffersonian opinion at Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia at Monticello.
On the other hand, it isn’t in the list of known ‘fake quotes’ in the Jefferson Encyclopedia either, so that is something.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Jefferson bought into this argument. He was in France when the Constitution was written, and the ‘natural born citizen’ clause was the result of a letter from John Jay to George Washington, I believe. (The Doc can correct me here, I am recalling his research, perhaps incorrectly).
The ball is in your court Mr. Daneman. Please provide the citation.
In trying to find Daneman’s “Jefferson” quote, I ran across the following quotes at Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Governmentwhich seem appropriate to this part of the discussion.
Here are some other Jefferson quotes touching on religion and government that seem appropriate to today’s environment:
I present these sentiments, not necessarily because Jefferson is the last word on the subject, but because certain segments of today’s society have been forging quotations in Jefferson’s name, in order to lend his considerable mojo to their causes. Most of those fake quotations are the exact opposite of Jefferson’s well documented opinion on the subject at hand.
Unless this is the first case of the judge, he has probably handled hundreds of requests for restraining orders. I would guess this is a case of first impression for him and he improperly found a cultural defense. If he had been misreading the law, I don’t see how he could have been the judge assigned to this division. IMO, this as a situation where cultural sensitivity took over his normal reasoning. Right now, the case is an anomaly.
But thank you for responding with your expertise.
I was speaking of marital rape cases specifically, where there may not be bruising and DNA evidence would only indicate intercourse, not a red flag in a marriage. Credible testimony may be all there is.
G,
Thanks for the links! Just a quick comment about Fr. Corapi and politics, he relinquished his tax exempt status to speak freely. That s the only reason why the Catholic Church tries to stay out of politics: taxes. Although all denominations are supposed to stay clear of specifically endorsing candidates, IMO the Catholic Church is scrutinized more closely in this regard.
I probably won’t check in for awhile because of responsibilities. Thanks again.
c.
sef,
I just wanted to say that I think you spoke out of character, maybe because of a deeply personal experience. Often that will trigger an out of character statement. That may not be the case, but it doesn’t matter. I don’t believe that you saw the callousness of your remarks. I think we can still discuss issues in the future, based upon our previous interactions.
charo-There are thousands of judges in the US, taking all of the various courts into account, so the errors of a single judge is not indicative of anything. As for whether this judge can or should be removed, that would depend on the laws of New Jersey. If NJ is like most states, he will stand for re-election at some point and this ruling would be fair game for an opponent.
Nevertheless, while rape, marital or otherwise, is not among them, there are cases where a person’s religious beliefs do matter in court. For example, in deciding whether someone is entitled to conscientious objector status, the court must consider the person’s religious views. In tax cases, where someone claims to be a member of the clergy, the court must determine whether this is real or simply a scheme to evade taxes.
I don’t claim to be an attorney, but I doubt that that anyone is going to be convicted of marital rape solely on the testimony of his wife. There has to be some corroborative evidence.
I too have been searching for the purported Jefferson quote. I don’t know if I’ve got to the bottom of it yet but it appears to originate from our old friend PA Madison rather than Jefferson.
WND quotes it on August 10 2009
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105904
But doesn’t attribute it to Jefferson but cites the Federalist Blog at
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
However it doesn’t now appear at that page, but an article at Gather
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978390032
Seems to mainly a cut and paste job from it and includes the paragraph but doesn’t attribute it to Jefferson so I doubt if the original PA Madison article did either.
Doc, I know you discourage calling other posters names, but wouldn’t using a fraudulent quotation from someone who is dead and thus unable to defend himself make one a sleazy, lying scumbag? If not, then what exactly would?
.
I am sorry to hear about your illness. However, such does not help your legal arguments. Where to start.
.
First, Pryor and Herlily are not he leading articles on the subject. One is a student note and one by a 1st year associate. There is a multitude of articles by actual law professors which adopt the common law rule. Of course, such common law definition is in every modern law dictionary and constitutional treatise. I guess all these scholars are wrong. Second, native and natural born were used interchangeably prior to the 14th Amendment by nearly every significant legal authority including Tucker, Kent, Story, Bouvier and even in the North Carolina ratification convention in 1789. In fact, there is more legal authority in such period saying the President must be native born than natural born. Finally, if you read the debates of the 14th Amendment, their clear intent was to clarify the original definition of citizen under the Constitution including who was natural born. I couldn’t modify the definition of natural born in such amendment, then a black man could not be president since Dred Scott said they couldn’t under the original constitution. I know it is frustrating that we can cite so many cases and scholars to support our position and you can’t.
It was a case of the judge being completely off base, and totally misreading the law and on mutliple levels (the appeals decision pretty much tore his entire order apart). The appeals court did actually go to great lengths comparing the case to cases involving Mormons and polygamy, to show the religions does not absolve a person from their crime, but I think the lower court judge’s reasoning was based on a completely wrong understanding of the requirement of intent (not to mention his order was contradicted itself…found domstic abuse, but not enough to require the retraining order…or something of that nature…I don’t have the order infront of me, and read it last night). Was the lower court judge motivated by “cultural sensitivity.” Possible. Could also be just a misogynistic old man too (his comment about a “rough patch early in their short marriage” was a little disjoined from reality). Again, I think this is one of those cases where you can chalk it up to a really bad lower state court decision, based on a really bad interpretation of the law. The sad reality is, the lower the court, the lower the quality of judges, and sometimes they really blow their interpretations of the law. Thanks again for bringing the case up. It was a rather interesting read.
I would also like to point out a little interesting factiod here, under the common law, a husband cannot rape his wife. This was still the case in Maryland (not sure about the other 49 states and DC) as of the time I took the bar exam (there are other crimes he could be charged with, but rape was not among them, and I’m not sure if this has change since I took the bar exam). There are plenty of strange quirks in the law.
I’m not sure what point Leonard is trying to make by citing Pryor, because she wrote this in a 1988 Yale Law Journal article::
It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born…Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth.
http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/constitutional-law/natural%11born-citizen-clause-and-presidential-eligibility/
Well, reading his latest poorly sourced rambling diatribe on his blog, I have to agree.
(and all his conflicting, or otherwise generally implausible stories don’t help either)
I’m not sure how the accurate identification of a “sleazy, lying scumbag” advances the argument. If all we did was identify the faults of the birthers, we’d have no time for anything else.
In the case at hand, Daneman did not himself fabricate the Jefferson quote because it appears elsewhere in birther literature. There is always the slim possibility that the quote is legitimate although this seems hard to believe given how much searching has been done on the phrase “natural born citizen” and the consistent lack of a citation where it does appear. More likely, Daneman suffers from confirmation bias, accepting the quote on face value without verifying it because it agrees with him.
I guess Daneman’s “lie” (should that be the case) would be putting forth a citation with the implication that the quote was genuine while not actually knowing that it was (or was not).
.
With respect to you response on your blog, I have to admit I do not follow much of you rambling arguments. First, the Jefferson quote is bogus, which has been pointed out many times before. I believe it is actually a PA Madison quote which means nothing. If you have a citation, please provide it.
.
Dealing with Hamilton and Jay. Hamilton proposed that the President by a citizen at birth. This was just another way of saying natural born under English law. At such time, natural born subjects meant anyone born within the realm or children of subject born oversees made natural born pursuant to naturalization statutes (However, there is much authority in England that the latter group were only natural born subjects if they returned to England). I don’t get the Jay quote. He doesn’t define “natural born” and no one can say such was a term of art that meant something other than what it meant under English law as that was the only use of the term at such time. We all know it didn’t appear in de Vattel at such time. Jay was an English common law lawyer and the terms of art he used were English terms. He wanted a strong check on foreign influence. This does not mean he wanted to preclude anyone with a foreign allegiance. In the convention itself, which is all that really matters, the only strong check proposed was to limit eligibility to native birth. Arguing they intended something else when no one brought it up when discussing the issues is just silly. As allegiance was uniformly defined by place of birth at such time, the native birth requirement made sense. I don’t get the Federalist quotes, none define natural born or say they wanted to prohibit anyone with a foreign allegiance. Do you stop and think how stupid you position would be? Any country could make any American a citizen and make them subject to a foreign allegiance. You are hence arguing that we give other countries the ability to determine who are our citizens and presidents. An absurd notion that without any support in history.
.
I see you have found Morse to cite. Gee, one scholar a century after the founding. I can cite about fifty 19th scholars supporting the English common law if you would like. Of course, Morse’s arguments were argued by losers in Wong Kim Ark. The court rejected them in favor of much more famous scholars like Kent, Story and Binney, as well as a multitude of other early authority. You can spin all you want, but the Supreme Court’s word trumps every thing else. The court held the 14th amendment declaratory of the English common law that was incorporated in the original constitution. It never distinguished between native and natural born, nor between the meaning of the 14th amendment and Article II. It fact, it defines them all within the meaning of the jus soli rule of the English common law. You can search all day and find no subsequent authority disputing this. Also, I think you need to read Elg again. She was defined to be a citizen solely because of birth on US soil citing Wong. There is nothing in such decision that supports any other basis of native citizenship, nor any distinction between native and natural born citizenship. Just the opposite actually.
.
I don’t get you citing 20th century naturalization statutes. Again, the supreme court rulings are clear that a child born on US soil is a citizen and Congress has no authority to change that. The supreme court also made clear that Congress did not have the authority to naturalize people born on US soil as naturalization only applied to the foreign born. Modern naturalization statutes referencing the native born children are simply declaratory of such law. There is no law which prevents someone with dual citizenship from being a native citizen at birth, though he may be deemed to expatriated or abandoned such citizenship under a number of circumstances.
.
I see nothing in the Galletin matter that helps you. Your Madison quote makes no sense. You leave out where Madison clearly defined citizenship and allegiance by place of birth:
.
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
.
“I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born…”
.
“Then, with respect to those natives who were minors at the revolution, and whose case is analogous to Mr. Smith’s, if we are bound by the precedent of such a decision as we are about to make, and it is declared that they owe a primary allegiance to this country…”
.
Trying to insert de Vattel into this silly. Notice Madison talks only of place of birth, nothing about the father and actually rejects the notion that parentage matters. He thus expressly rejects de Vattel He references the laws of nature, but such doesn’t mean he buys de Vattel’s definition of law of nature. Under English law, jus soli and the common law represented the law of nature. I suppose you never read Calvin’s Case the most famous citizenship case in English history and the basis of birthright citizenship which defined jus soli as the law of nature. You are desperately trying to read something helpful in to a quote that is devastating to your position.
.
To summarize:
.
(1) You can cite no court in history that said natural born citizens needed citizen parents or couldn’t have dual citizenship. Doesn’t exist.
(2) You can cite no evidence that the framers intended to adopt you definition. They only talked jus soli in the convention and it does not logically folly that the fear of some of foreign influence would require your definition as allegiance was uniformly defined by place of birth in such era.
(3) You can find no framer nor any legal authority of the founding era using the term “natural born citizen” with respect anything other than the common law. Again, doesn’t exist.
(4) You cannot explain why, except for a handful of fringe theorist in the late 19th century, every significant legal authority over the past 220 years defined the term by the English common law or conflated it with native born. This includes pretty much all the legal giants of the founding era.
(5) Every one else outside birtherdom understands the Supreme Court addressed this issue thoroughly 100 years ago and rejected all the arguments being made by birthers today. You should read the losing brief. Like it or not, the court’s thorough analysis will be treated as the most substantial authority on the subject until the issue is revised whether or not you try to dismiss it as dicta, as it was the basis of the ultimate holding of the case.
It’s a long and complicated matter, and ultimately OT here. If there’s one point I’d like to make, quickly, is that there is a strong tradition of laicity, you might even say enmity, towards religion in France, going back to the French Revolution.
Whatever “attacks” may be currently directed towards the Muslim faith right now are nothing compared to what has been hurled at the Roman Catholic Church — or smaller “religions” labeled “sects”. So whatever you might read in US papers has little to do with Muslims per se, but must be placed in a much larger and older and well established anti-religion tradition.
.
I had prevously pointed out to Daneman that the quote was bogus and he admitted he could find no authority to support it.
.
http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/04/dispatches-from-birtherstan-for-13-april-2010/comments/page/2/#comments
.
Here is the PA Madison article with the quote:
.
http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/page/defining-naturalborn-citizen-1
.
Oh, and here is ParalegalNM’s reponse to my calling the quote bogus:
.
“Admission of Inaccuracy
I attributed a quote to Thomas Jefferson from my notes, but went to bed uneasy about it. In the morning I searched for proper citation, and though the quote appears many, many times on the web, I can not find a verifiable connection to Thomas Jefferson.
.
“Admission of Inaccuracy
.
I attributed a quote to Thomas Jefferson from my notes, but went to bed uneasy about it. In the morning I searched for proper citation, and though the quote appears many, many times on the web, I can not find a verifiable connection to Thomas Jefferson.
.
Here is a real quote from Thomas Jefferson: “Better delay than error.””
.
http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/04/dispatches-from-birtherstan-for-20-april-2010.html
Sorry, didn’t mean to paste the quote twice.
Doc, the first time one puts forward a bogus quote one might well be “mistaken” or “sloppy”. However, if one is informed that the quote is bogus and admits to that fact and then comes back 6 months later with the same quote, I am sorry, but I know of no other word to describe that than “lying”. And someone who delibeartely and repeatedly tells such lies is, sorry to say, properly called a “liar”.
That’s can’t be possible! A birther would never repeat discredited information, would they?
My faith in humanity is just shattered.
I agree, this guy clearly is interested only in spreading his B.S.
A common trait of birthers is that they never, ever directly respond to points for which they have no good answers. Instead of addressing those points – such as the fact that in Wong Kim Ark the government conceded that a ruling in Wong Kim Ark’s favor would make him a natural born citizen and eligible to be President – birthers just ignore them and change the subject.
Then we have his claim that he won a lawsuit, when the New Mexico docket shows that the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution. Then he claims that he sued a New Mexico lawyer who was subsequently disbarred, only there is no record of him suing any attorney and he refuses to identify the disbarred attorney.
And now we know that he is repeating a lie which he admitted back in April was erroneously attributed:
“Again, I apologize for the failure to properly attribute the quote. In my opinion, it doesn’t even sound like Jefferson.” – Leonard Daneman, 4/20/10
Well done, Ballantine!
Thanks, ballantine, I hadn’t seen that discussion. What a rich thread! I now feel like there’s nothing new Daneman can add without addressing your previous discussion. Many thanks for the link.
.
More evidence on the innocence of our friend. When debating me, he apparently went over to the geniuses at WND Forums for help. He asked:
.
“RE: YES!! A CALLER JUST BROUGHT UP THE LAW OF NATIONS!!
Posted by su359115 on Apr 20, 2010 12:24
.
GVA, you are the obscure quotation guru. I see this quote all over the internet, but no formal citation of its attribution to Thomas Jefferson. Give me a hand on this?
.
“Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States.”
.
http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=235&pageNo=110
.
The answer he got from GVA:
.
“RE: RE: Origin of the Alleged Thomas Jefferson Definition
Posted by GVA on Apr 20, 2010 21:39
.
I don’t think that I made myself clear. That alleged quote is NOT from Thomas Jefferson. P.A. Madison was not quoting Thomas Jefferson in the concluding paragraph of that 2008 article. The definition is from P.A. Madison in his concluding paragraph of that November 18, 2008 article. The definition was written by P.A. Madison. They are his words. If you got that from my reply, then I’m sorry for misunderstanding your remark about the “[e]xcellent link in the chain, proving the Obama fraud and failure”. It’s still good for me to be clearer for those that may have misunderstood my brief reply.”
.
http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=235&pageNo=109
You got me on P.A. Madison again . . . going back into my notes and deleting that bugaboo once and for all. Anyway, I don’t see you calling your precious Obama a liar for having two quotes, his favorites, misattributed, and woven into the border of the new carpet in the middle of the Oval Office.
As for the disbarred lawyer . . . he now has a prestigious judgeship. The case was not published. I will not name names . . . my files are sealed.
The 14th Amendment was not written, or to be interpreted, as a definition of ‘natural born citizen.’ Sen. John Bingham and another author of the Amendment made that clear in their quoted commentaries.
As for Wong Kim Ark, he was faced with being born without a nationality, the legal term being apartheid. A stateless condition violates the laws of nature, as does dual nationality for that matter. He is not a natural born citizen, and quoting dicta from Ark’s discussion section will lose you points in a formal debate.
Ark held that a sovereign nation has the power to determine who has jus solis citizenship. Period.
As for other religions in the presidency, the governor I quoted had a point. The United States is fundamentally a Christian nation. The founders recognized their Protestant roots and that the Republic could not stand without Christian principles of self-discipline. They were all too familiar with the Roman church’s role in European governments, and the religioius persecutions. Judge Hugo Black played around with Jefferson’s creative use of a quote from a Roger Williams sermon (google that) in order to distinguish taxpayer funds used for secular purposes (safe bus transportation) and religious ones.
Islam, in particular, is completely ill-suited to the presidency . . . that quasi-religious movement is our sworn enemy, whether you realize it or not.
How conveeeeeeeenient.
If you can’t show it, it never happened. Especially if you’ve already earned distrust through your lack of honesty. Life is hard, get over it.
Gotta love that phrase “whether you realize it or not”.
Whenever you have an idea that you reeeeeeeeeeally need to be the truth, but have absolutely no substantiation for, just tack “whether you realize it or not” in front ant it magically transforms from ridiculous to ironclad, right?
“Lieberals are all anti-american, whether you realize it or not”
“COLB is not a valid document, whether you realize it or not”
“Natural Born was defined for America by the Ubermeister Vattel, whether you realize it or not”
“Obama is a Muslim, and all Muslims are sworn to the service of Satan, whether you realize it or not”
“Invisible Purple Spotted Unicorns from Betelguese IV live in my garage, from where they control a vast Illuminati organization which employs all Jews to take over the Government and fire mind control rays at real Americans who need to cover their skulls in tin foil to prevent the black helicopters from sending alien fungus spores to the FEMA deathcamps through backmasking in music which is transmitted through satelites to the jets spraying the populace with chemtrail drugs to make us forget that 9/11 was an inside job………
……..whether you realize it or not”
Comedy gold.
– – – – – – – – – – –
How about, Thomas Jefferson said:
“Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States.”
As I’ve shown, the mother’s nationality automatically became that of the husband . . . derivative naturalization ended, for the wife not the children, in 1922. However, that does not change the meaning of Article II’s natural born citizen clause. A citizen by statute is not a natural born citizen.
Check, and Mate . . . your arguments are specious, and I dare say treasonous as they undermine the constitution and, as we see today, the presidency and the republic.
You can all go to hell as far as I’m concerned.
Posted by: Paralegalnm.wordpress.com | 04/19/2010 at 04:44 PM
Laurence Daneman – “your arguments are specious, and I dare say treasonous as they undermine the constitution and, as we see today, the presidency and the republic.
You can all go to hell as far as I’m concerned.”
Translation – “Wahh, you’re not buying the manure I’m trying to sell! Wahhh, I’m taking my questionable legal arguments and going home! Wahhh!!”
Note, we’re not the ones with specious legal arguments, nor are we the ones trying to undermine the Constitution, the Presidency, and the Republic.
I leave THOSE jobs to the birthers and their treason-filled souls.
Posted by: Patrick McKinnion | 04/19/2010 at 04:51 PM
It’s obvious you didn’t bother to read how the dissent said that the affirmation by the court would make Ark natural born and elligible for president. You also didnt read the lower court decision which the supreme court upheld. Somehow you skipping that is par for the course for being a fake paralegal who has to bolster his own lack of credentials to feel good about himself.
Funny stuff….first off, the idea about Mr. “the story changes every time it tell it part-time paralegal” lecturing anyone about losing points in a formal debate is just too much for words. And even better, he is going say what he lablels dicta, but the entire legal world has cites as controlling loses one points in a formal debate while he tries to cast the decision as being based on something the Court did not mention in its entire opinion. I suppose one picks up points for claiming the case stands for a proposition that the Court did not even discuss?
And the icing on the cake…he again improperly defines a term (wow…you seem to be very good at that). Apartheid is not the legal term for being born stateless. Aparthied is the practice of keeping a group(s) separate. It comes directly for the South African practice of racial segregation (aparthied is actually an Afrikaans word meaning separateness, and the word as used in English has its origins from that policy starting in circa 1950…yes, a policy of keeping people stateless can be a form of apartheid, but it is fundamentally incorrect to say the legal term for being stateless is apartheid).
The fun just never stops with this guy.
Hush, no one is supposed to know.
.
With respect to the 14th Amendment, it is clear you never read the debates to such amendment. John Bingham had nothing to do with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Such was written by Jacob Howard who told us the English rule was the rule of all nations and, like Lord Coke, the rule of natural law:
.
“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Senator Howard (author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment), Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).”
.
Bingham’s comment you like to cite was actually not made during the 14th Amendment debates, but the civil rights act debates. No one agreed with Bingham’s statements. Rather, the author of such act, Senator Trumbull told us repeatedly that children of aliens were citizens and that such acts were unnecessary as the original constitution already provided that all native born persons were citizens under the natural born citizenship clause:
.
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
.
For Trumbull, and most of the people who spoke on the amendment, they were clarifying exisitng law under the original constitution and removing the ambiguity from Dred Scott. You can look all day and will find no one saying there were re-defining citizenship. And a many members of such Congress spoke to the eligibility of the President:
.
“Blackstone says ‘The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.’ The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here… The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).
.
“It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).
.
“It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 387 (1866)
.
“The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency? Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).
.
“One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877).
.
“What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)
.
Daneman Says:
.
“As for Wong Kim Ark, he was faced with being born without a nationality, the legal term being apartheid. A stateless condition violates the laws of nature, as does dual nationality for that matter. He is not a natural born citizen, and quoting dicta from Ark’s discussion section will lose you points in a formal debate. Ark held that a sovereign nation has the power to determine who has jus solis citizenship. Period. ”
..
I have tried not to put you down for not being a lawyer, but you clearly have no idea what a holding is. I have no idea what you are writing. The sole question presented to the court was whether Wong, a child born of resident aliens on US soil, was a citizen of the United States at birth. There was no question before the court on being born without nationality or the power of a nation to determine citizenship. The holding obviously relates to the question before the court. Duh. The court ruled that Wong was a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment as such amendment was declaratory of the law existing prior to the amendment, the English common law that was incorporated into the original consitutution. One can argue how broadly to construe the holding, but the holding was in no way limited to the Chinese or to persons who would not have a nationality, as no such thing was mentioned when the holding was stated. Rather, the holding was charactorized as broad affirmation of the United States adopting the common law. The continued attempts to misconstue Wong really are just silly at this point and really just show an ignorance of reading case law.
“The United States is fundamentally a Christian nation.”
Umm no. The United States is fundamentally a secular nation with a Christian majority, founded by predominantly Protestant men.
Islam, in particular, is completely ill-suited to the presidency . . . that quasi-religious movement is our sworn enemy, whether you realize it or not.”
Hmmm who should I believe you or Colin Powell?
“I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.”
Au contraire . . . the Hon. Sen. John Bingham is considered the Chief framer of the 14th Amendment, credited with the equal protection clause and the conceptualization of selective incorporation.
I would call Bingham of utmost if not ultimate authority on the question we are discussing.
As for Trumbull, emphasis on ‘bull,’ he doesn’t even quote from Article II accurately, ignoring ‘natural born’ and replacing it with the term ‘native-born.’
Native and Natural are distinct and unique terms . . . the first denoting jus solis and the latter jus sanguinis. You can not conflate the terms to win your fallacious argument.
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”
– John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
I owned up to my mistake in the careless ‘copy and paste’ from P.A. Madison’s article. I made one other error, caught by a more gracious reader . . . I read a naturalization case and mixed up a year cited at the end of one sentence with another year noted in the following sentence. I fixed the error . . . having written well over 10,000 words on this topic, well populated with citations of law and other sources, two mistakes are not a surprise and hopefully forgiven . . . those errata had no effect on the logic and conclusions of law.
As for not being a lawyer, I regret having to quit school . . . I loved the training and researching and writing for attorneys, which I still do on occassion. However, I miss my health even more . . . my $3000 custom-made road bike sits by the door unridden for years . . . the nerves are healing and I can feel the ‘fire’ of my metabolism rekindling, the energy of life growing from the slumbering embers . . . reawakening. Nerves heal slowly.
1. The “misattributed quotes” nonsense is based on the erroneous belief of one Jane Stiehm, a so-called historian who seems to believe that a paraphrase and a quotation at the same thing. She is wrong, the President is right, and you have once again done nothing but demonstrated your own bias against the President.
2. Wong Kim Ark most certainly did NOT face “apartheid.” Apartheid is a system of racial segregation developed in South Africa in the 20th century as a means by which white Afrikaners could control native blacks and mixed race citizens. It has nothing to do with a 19th century Chinese-American, and your use of the term shows that once again that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
3. The United States government was based on Enlightenment principles, not on Christianity. Not only that, most of the founders (most notably Adams, Jefferson, and Washington) were Deists, not Christians, and would have been appalled at your projection of your own religious beliefs onto their writings. You would know this if you’d passed middle school civics, which you clearly didn’t.
4. Islam has nothing to do with the President’s birth in Hawaii. That you keep bringing it up is clear evidence that you are a bigot, and a remarkably obtuse one at that.
As for Ellid,
Apartheid is a Suid Afrikaan word, but the blocking of massive immigration of job seeking blacks from the African interior created camps of people/refugees, the children of which were not allowed South African citizenship or rights.
It created a ‘stateless’ condition, the children growing up neither South African or the nationality effectively abandoned and/or renounced by their tribal parents.
That is what J. Gray had to deal with . . . China denied Ark citizenship, as did U.S. law . . . thus, a stateless condition. So, I borrowed the term ‘apartheid’ . . . sue me.
The term can also be related to Balkanization, another word created out of a nationality dispute and applied to conditions outside of the place of its origin. You can call the massing of Palestinians (most from Jordan or Egypt) on the Israeli border an attempt to create political change in a static war of population. The corruption of our Southern border has changed the face of Texas and Arizona, entire towns practically taken over and private property too dangerous to enter or live upon . . . that ‘balkanization’ is equated with Invasion.
I grew up in ‘colonial’ Pennsylvania where homes and farms from that period existed unmolested by time, as were the smells and verdant landscapes . . . and the battlefields as well. When living in Philadelphia, my home was only a block or two from Independence Mall and many a time I would sit meditating, alone, in Christ’s Church.
There is no known definition for the brief philosphical movement called Deism. Our founding fathers were deeply committed to the Protestant Reformation, as was Wm Penn . . . a Quaker, a very early and respected Protestant sect.
As for Islam, they are at war with us. That is the basic and essential principle followed by Muslims from the Koran itself . . . they are infiltrating the media and lobby congress through licensed and unlicensed agents of foreign interests, some being entire Washington, DC law firms.
Get a clue.
.
Again, sorry to hear about your health. However, you are still wrong on the law. Bingham had nothing to do with the citizenship clause. Made no contribution at all. He made one statement on it that no one agreed with. I can cite dozens and dozens of Congressmen invoking the common law defintion if you would like. You obviously have not read the debates. In addition, you are not aware that Bingham is famous for nutty views on the Constitution. There are actually very famous law review articles on the subject. See, Charles Fairman, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, 2 Stan.L.Rev. 5 (1949); Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary, pg. 1445 (1978; Alexander M. Bickel, The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 5 n. 13 (1955).
.
“Native and Natural are distinct and unique terms . . . the first denoting jus solis and the latter jus sanguinis. You can not conflate the terms to win your fallacious argument.”
.
Just a silly statement. You have cited no authorty that natural born was limited to jus sanguinis. There is some authority it meant both jus soli and janguinis, but such was a significant minority and was actually rejected in Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim ark also defined both natural born and native born according to the same common law definition. Trumbull didn’t misquote article II. Like everyone else from the period, natural and native born meant the same thing which is why the majority of early legal authority said the President must be native born. They meant the same thing under the common law. Funny how you cite a quote form the civil rights debate by someone who had nothing to due with the citizenship clause and ignore the person who actually wrote it and was the primary proponent of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause in the Senate debates. Anyway, i could cite authority all day conflating native and natural born. Here are some examples for you if you don’t want to research:
.
“No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” Elliot’s Debates –DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196 (statments of future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, July 30, 1788).
.
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
.
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States….” James Kent John Melville Gould, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Commentaries on American Law, Vol. 1, pg. 333 (1901)
.
“Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States…..An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. There are some exceptions, however, to this rule, by the ancient English law, as in the case of the children of public ministers abroad, (provided their wives be English women,) for they owe not even a local allegiance to any foreign power. ” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
.
“The president must, by law, be a native born citizen; so that none need aspire to that high calling, but those who might emphatically be termed natural sons of America.” Joseph Dennie, John Elihu Hall, The Port Folio, pg. 199, (1822)
.
“By the provisions of the federal constitution, the President and Vice President of the United States are required to be native-born citizens; and the President is required to cause the laws of the Union to be executed. These high places of power, it was then thought, could not, with safety to the American people, be occupied by any but natural-born citizens” Rep. Russel, Congressional Globe, 24th Cong., 1st Sess. pg 4256 (1836)
.
“It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1840 ed.)
.
“Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 265 (1843)
.
“No person can be elected president who is less than 35 years of age, who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United Stales…” John Ramsay McCulloch, Daniel Haskel, M’Culloch’s Universal Gazetteer: A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World, pg. 994 (1844)
.
“Afterwards however, in Convention, the words “natural born citizen” were stricken out, and the word ” native” was substituted, as the original words might have left an uncertainty as to the meaning of the Convention, for ” natural born citizen” might have had some reference to the manner of birth, while the word ” native” would refer more particularly to the place of birth. ” Sherman Croswell, R. Sutton, Debates and Proceedings in the New-York State Convention – New York (State) Pg. 148 (1846)
.
“No person can be President or Vice-president who is not a native-born citizen, of the age of thirty-five years, ….” Richard Swainson Fisher, The progress of the United States of America: from the earliest periods. Geographical, statistical, and historical, pg. 9 (1854)
.
“The executive power is vested in a president and vice-president; each chosen for a term four years each to be a native born citizen…..Emma Willard, Abridged history of the United States, or, Republic of America, pg. 254 (1856)
.
“They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, … Samuel Clagett Busey, Immigration: Its Evils and Consequences pg. 10 (1856)
.
“Your committee is of opinion that no one can be eligible to discharge, for the time being, the functions of President, unless he be thirty-five years old, and a native born citizen. A Speaker of the House, or a President pro tempore, might not have these qualifications —and if so, he could not act as President in compliance with the Constitution.” Sen. Butler, 8/05/1856, Reports of Committees: 30th Congress, 1st Session – 48th Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 4., By United States Congress. Senate, Congress, Published 1856
.
“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.”
ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(J. Miller, dissenting).
.
“One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of tho United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877)
.
“It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, William Horatio Barnes, History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 387 (1868)
.
“What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)
.
“One of the qualifications of President of the United States is that he must be a native born citizen, and incontestibly were it not for this provision a naturalized citizen might, if elected, hold that high position.” White v. Clements, Georgia Supreme Court, 1870, Reports of Cases in Law and Equity, Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, in the Year , pg. 256-57 (1870)
.
“The qualifications for president and vice-president by this clause are made the same. They must, therefore, be native born citizens of the United States, or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, and been fourteen years citizens of the United States, and thirty-five years old.” John King, A Commentary on the Law and True Construction of the Federal Constitution, pg. 206, (1871)
.
“The President was required to be thirty-five years of age, and native born, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution.” Richard Hildreth, The History of the United States of America, pg. 521 (1880)
.
“The President and the Vice-President, (and hence their Electors also), are required, however, to be native-born citizens of the United States. Here we have a clear inclusion of all the States as to their native-born, and a clear Delusion of all foreign-born citizens.” Meeds Tuthill, The civil polity of the United States considered in its theory and practice, pg. 83 (1883)
.
“As the president and vice-president are elected at and for the same time, the right to be chosen to both offices is dependent upon the same conditions (12th amendment). To be eligible, it is necessary to be a native-born citizen of the United States,…Hermann Von Holst, Alfred Bishop Mason, The Constitutional Law of the United States of America” pg. 84 (1887)
.
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.” Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
.
“It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” “Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth.” Jill A.Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, at 881 and n. 2 (1988)
.
“Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).
.
“It is now generally assumed that the term “natural born” is synonymous with “native born.” “It [therefore] is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible [for the presidency] and that naturalized citizens are not.” There is a general agreement among commentators, whether or not they are advocates of an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, that “whether someone born of American parents abroad would be considered a natural born citizen” is an open question.” Lawrence Freedman, An Idea Whose Time Has Come–The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for the Presidency, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007)
So what!
535 congressmen got it wrong, especially Obama.
The Hon Senator John Bingham trumps them all . . .
Native is statutory . . . Natural is, well, natural law.
Get a clue . . . and to continue the card player terminology, read ’em and weep.
I’m right . . . you are just too stubborn to see a Nuance that is sitting plain as day, as plain as the nose on your face.
I already told the Emperor Has No Clothes story . . . you don’t even get that hint.
You should give up photography for comedy. Notice I didn’t say give up law, because there is nothing to indicate you have anything to do with that.
By the way, didn’t you say you weren’t going to post any more? I guess that was no more true than your Jefferson quote.
Your attempt to tap dance around the actual meaning of the word apartheid does not change the fact that apartheid is not the legal word for being in a stateless condition. You used the word incorrectly like you very often do.
No, you misused the term, and tried to puff yourself up. You said “being born without a nationality, the legal term being apartheid” which is fundamentally incorrect. Also, you are doublely wrong in saying that is waht the Court was faced with in Wong Kim Ark. “…and the said Wong Kim Ark, being also a Chinese person, and a subject of the emeror of China.” 169 U.S. at 650. You seem to have quite the knack of ignoring the actual text of the Court’s opinion while writing into it things that are not.
Run a google search, go to a library, do something….Deism is a very well defined and documented philosophical/spritual movement of the Enlightenment.
Am I suprised that someone who ignores the clear words of the law, ignores well documented history….and William Penn was dead some 80 years prior to the establishment of our Country, so what he has to do with any of the discussion is beyond me.
Wow….just wow….I suppose you are right in one point…FoxNews is owned by the Saudis….I suppose you are actively trying to shut them down as we speak?
Someone please tell me this is joke….I can’t believe even a birth would act this much like a spolied child….”whaaaaa…..I’m right and you’re wrong because I say so”?
It’s not a funny joke. It’s more like watching a pathetic, petulant, Islamophobic birther bigot with zero credibility and zero authority sling arrogance and a lack of education to desperately attempt to prop up an extremely fragile ego with a tenuous grasp of reality.
But still a joke.
Saying that everyone is wrong and only you are right are the tell tale signs of someone who is a paranoid schitzophrenic. You should spend less time forming flawed legal opinions without a degree and more time consulting your shrink
“As for Islam, they are at war with us. That is the basic and essential principle followed by Muslims from the Koran itself . . . they are infiltrating the media and lobby congress through licensed and unlicensed agents of foreign interests, some being entire Washington, DC law firms.”
Hmmmm who would be more privy to the actual intentions of all Muslims?
Leonard- who hasn’t really been shown to be right about anything or
Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert Shield, Vietnam war vet
Hmmmm who is both more credible and also has had access to the highest level of access to security and terrorism intel information?
Oh its tough- but I will go with Powell.
Get a clue.
Of course your files are sealed, because nothing you have said about the “disbarred lawyer” is true. The disbarment of an attorney is public record, so if it is true there is no reason for you to refuse to identify him. And the case was not published? Don’t you mean that the “case” was never docketed? And we are supposed to believe that a disbarred attorney was appointed to a prestigious judgeship?
You are incompetent when it comes to analyzing the law, but you are positively pathetic when it comes to fabricating stories.
1. Apartheid is a 20th century political concept that has nothing to do with 19th century prejudice against the Chinese. It also has nothing to do with Balkan politics, which have been an unholy mess since before any Europeans had ever seen the Cape of Good Hope, let alone settled there.
2. I’m also from Pennsylvania. You pseudo-lyrical blather does not conceal the fact that you are so ill-informed as to be unaware that William Penn died almost sixty years before the American Revolution. How a man who lived and died a loyal subject of George I could possibly have been one of the leaders of a revolt against George III is beyond me, and I have no idea where you got the idea that William Penn had diddly squat to do with the founding of the United States.
You also seem to forget that Penn believed in religious freedom just as much as he believed in Jesus, and that Pennsylvania was one of the first colonies to allow its citizens to worship without fear of persecution. He would have been appalled by your bigotry and hatred of Islam, and doubtless would have prayed for your soul.
3. The founders of Delaware, devout Catholics all, would be greatly surprised to learn that they were “deeply committed to the Protestant religion.” Ditto Virginia (founded as treasure hunting expedition), Vermont (originated in a land dispute), and Georgia (a penal colony). In fact, at least one colony (Rhode Island) was founded to get away from the “deep commitment to the Protestant religion” of another colony (Massachusetts Bay) which was begun by people who wanted a place where they could worship as they pleased, including burning Quakers at the state, massacring the Wampanoag Indians, and hanging elderly women for witchcraft.
Go read a decent history instead of David Barton’s crap, and then come back. Otherwise, keep your ridiculous version of American history to yourself. Once again, you haven’t the faintest idea of what you’re talking about.
Uh, Lenny? John Bingham is dead. Why are you relying on him instead of, oh, the US legal code?
As for Emperor Norton, a bigot like you has no business so much as mentioning that great and gentle soul. You should be ashamed of yourself.
And oh yes – Emperor Norton I explicitly forbade religious bigotry or conflict, which makes your citation of him even worse.
I must apologize for misreading Leonard’s post, as ridiculous as it is. He did not mention the great and noble Emperor Norton I, a true American visionary, although he would do well to consider his example. I can only plead annoyance, exhaustion, and lingering dyslexia stemming from general anesthesia this summer.
I stand by everything else I said.
More Post and Fail nonsense by court martialed former Lt. Commdr. Fitzpatrick
“William Winthrop was a colonel in the United States Army who wrote a treatise entitled Military Law and Precedents first published in 1880 as a compilation of JAG opinions. The second edition was published in 1920 but shows a copyright date of 1896. The work has been called “The blackstone of military law.” The book was reissued in 2000 by Beard Books and is available from several vendors, including in Canada.
Prior to his enlistment in the U.S. Army, Winthrop was a practicing attorney. His 1895 revised compendium acknowledged changes in “Army Regulation” and “statutory authority” and was used for “the instruction of the Cadets of the Military Academy” (page 7).
…….
“The second volume of Winthrop’s book makes reference to “The Law of Nations” and states that “the Law of War” “is quite independent of the ordinary law…Finding indeed its original authority in the war powers of Congress and the Executive, and thus constitutional in its source, the Law of War may, in its exercise, substantially supersede for the time even the Constitution itself…”
………
“Cdr. Walter Fitzpatrick (Ret.) generously gave his time to The Post & Email to explain the concept of “attainder,” to whom the authority belongs to convene a court-martial, and the impact of a broken chain of command if indeed Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. He discussed in detail how it affects Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who has refused to obey orders based on his contention that Obama may not meet the constitutional qualifications to issue orders. Cdr. Fitzpatrick also discussed the potential results of Col. Denise Linds recent claim that she and the Pentagon have the authority to conduct Lakin’s court-martial without authorization from the putative commander-in-chief.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/19/military-law-manual-authority-to-order-courts-martial-resides-with-the-commander-in-chief/
I think Mr. Daneman is literally saying that 535 congressmen got the certification of the election of Barack Obama wrong, but that he, Daneman, got it right. S. Res. 511 would only involve 100 Senators, and there were fewer than 535 congressmen in Bingham’s time. It is a rather ambiguous comment, though.
That fake quote should have stuck out like a sore thumb to anyone as familiar with the material as you claim to be. It certainly set off alarm bells with me.
You can add Maryland (charter granted to the Catholic Calvert family).
Thanks for sharing. That was interesting reading. I wonder if Daneman will back down on his claim that Stanley Ann Dunham renounced her citizenship when Obama was six, now that we have copies of her US passport renewals since then.
Thank you for mentioning Emperor Norton, a man dear to my city’s history.
Let me just say, that I do see some resemblence between him and Leonard. Not a lot, just one particularly distingushing trait.
This probably deserves to be in a different thread but I am too lazy to figure out which one.
The other day, I was driving along and thinking- “What if Arnold Schwartzenneger was elected President”- meaning that voters, the RNC, the Electoral college and Congress just chose to ignore the fact that everyone knows that Arnold is not eligible. What if Arnold was so popular that everyone chose to ignore the Constitution?
But then it occurred to me- this is exactly how Birthers view Obama. To the Birther- it is obvious that Obama is not eligible- they are just not sure exactly why. To us, it is obvious that Arnold is not eligible, because we all learned in school that, with a few exceptions, those born in a foreign country are not eligible to be President, but to Birthers, it is obvious that Obama is not eligible, but they are convinced that everyone else(Congress, etc) is either colluding to overlook the obvious or they just aren’t as enlightened as Birthers.
This is why rational discussion never goes anywhere- just as we ‘know’ Arnold is not eligible, Birthers just know Obama is not eligible and start from this position and intuitively cannot accept a situation where Obama is eligible.
Anyway- this was my little aha! moment.
Leonard inspired me.
I’ve made my case.
Time will tell.
I would think the 70 odd court losses has already has already made it quite clear where your case stands.
But considering the fanciful stories about your personal life you expect people to swallow, you seem to be quite good at deluding yourself
Thank you for providing more context on the matter of what is going on over there in France.
LMAO! Now that is what I call pure comedy gold. Kudos on the brilliant weaving of various paranoid wingnuttery together…
Agreed. I’d say that sums it up perfectly.
Exactly. “Time” has not been kind to the birthers, nor their proto-predecessors, the PUMAs. Every court case – EPIC FAIL. Every “any day now” pronouncement of Obama’s removal – consistently failed predictions consigned to the dustbin of history and quickly forgotten. Every “OMG” moment in birtherdom – quickly fizzled into nothing.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I think it is clear that the birthers have been completely mentally damaged by their hate, perhaps irrevocably.
Well, Murdoch is still majority owner, I think, so its mostly owned by Australians. Same thing, I suppose.
I’d just call it a pathetic acknowledgment of defeat.
99 Senators actually. Minnesota hadn’t certified its election yet.
i think obama’s actual opponent would have been a better bizarro-world example — if mccain had proved as popular as either obama or schwarzenegger. armed with gabe chin’s analysis in one hand and “smoking gun” senate resolution 511 in the other, mccain’s birfers would be no less implacable than obama’s, and probably no less marginal, since most voters just wouldn’t be very moved by the legal minutiae surrounding the birth of a war hero. still, unlike the current crop of birfers, mccain’s nemeses would probably attract an entirely different class of legal counsel — one that was qualified, credible and sane.
No, you haven’t. That’s the point you will never comprehend.
Time’s up.
He’s not even a good photographer.
Ditto here.
As always, scrape the pseudo-intellectual arguments and the pseudo-legal nonsense, and the fact that NONE of these issues seemed to matter before we had a “black muslim” president, and you’re left with only rank bigotry desperately trying to deny the reality.
A time warp??? It has been almost 2 years. So, time says it is over.
jeff-Being a sensible guy, as you seem to be, I doubt you would be all over web sites calling Arnold a usurper and pretending that this is the greatest crisis since time began. Rather, I suspect that you would put the interests of the country first and hope that Arnold would be a successful ineligible President rather than an unsuccessful one.
There is so much wrong with this short statement:
1. A respected Protestant sect? Quakers were persecuted badly in England and the United States. William Penn himself spent time in jail in London due to his Quaker beliefs.
2. Mentioning Quakers and then mentioning we are at war with Islam: Religious tolerance has always been a bedrock testimony among the Quakers (unlike the other separatists who believed in tolerance for their “flavor” but not others). In addition, many Quakers over time (not all, of course) have been committed pacifists (such as my own mother).
Ideologies do not fight wars, people do. If you go to war against an ideology, the results will not be in your favor (think Vietnam).
This is likely why the birthers keep losing. They think only in macros (large scale) and not upon the specific focused, issues. They are doing battle against the _________________ (insert your anti-Obama term here) and their strategy follows this declaration. This prevents them from making detailed plans and collecting all of their facts, which could cause them to reconsider the usefulness of there little war.
100, S. Res 511 was passed before the election. I suppose the number would be 534 in Congress.
You’ve avoided answering questions, lied, and bloviated. Time has indeed told, and it’s told anyone with a brain that you’re wrong.
sfjeff, I think that you mean “Birthers think Obama to be not eligible.” There has to be fact, information or something else that is correct to use the term “know.”
And oh, in case Leonard decides to read this again, here are the actual origins of the Original 13:
1. New Hampshire – mixed origins, but primarily commercial (fishing) and getting away from the oppressive Puritans in 17th century Massachusetts.
2. Massachusetts – theocratic, with two main groups (the Separatists and the Puritans) trying to create a pure fundamentalist regime by suppressing the secularists at Merrymount (now part of Quincy), persecuting women (Anne Hutchinson and the Salem “witches”) and executing Quakers and Catholics.
3. Rhode Island and Providence Plantations – getting the hell away from Massachusetts to worship in peace. The first colony to allow all believers liberty of conscience, so it’s no coincidence that the oldest synagogue in America is in Newport. Still has a congregation, rabbi, and services, too.
4. New York – founded by the Dutch as a commercial colony, taken over by Great Britain.
5. New Jersey – ditto, with the addition of a small Swedish colony that was also taken over.
6. Pennsylvania – founded by William Penn based on the principles of religious liberty and egalitarianism. Had exceptionally good relations with the local Native Americans, low public debt, and no militia until the French and Indian War.
7. Delaware – mixed origins, with Dutch, Swedish, British Catholic, and Quaker colonies all making up what is now Delaware. Ethnically and religious diverse.
8. Connecticut – began as a buffer against Dutch expansion, later settled by Massachusetts Puritans. Never as fanatical as the witch-hangers in the Bay State.
9. Maryland – founded by Catholics, not Protestants.
10. Virginia – commercial colony looking to exploit the raw materials of the New World, including the gold they mistakenly thought was there.
11 and 12. The Carolinas – commercial colonies, not religious.
13. Georgia – penal colony for debtors.
Bonus states:
14. Vermont – started out as part of New Hampshire and New York, became a separate country for fourteen years. Not religious.
15. Maine – part of Massachusetts until it entered the Union as a free state to balance a slave state. Always more tolerant than the Bay State.
So…the only colonies that were “deeply committed to the Protestant religion” were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Land, and the latter three of these were founded in response to religious intolerance, not to promote a particular faith. The remaining eight colonies were either acquired from other countries that did NOT found them as theocracies, or were founded for commercial reasons.
Looks like Lenny needs some history lessons as well as remedial pre-law.
And oh, in case Leonard decides to read this again, here are the actual origins of the Original 13:
1. New Hampshire – mixed origins, but primarily commercial (fishing) and getting away from the oppressive Puritans in 17th century Massachusetts.
2. Massachusetts – theocratic, with two main groups (the Separatists and the Puritans) trying to create a pure fundamentalist regime by suppressing the secularists at Merrymount (now part of Quincy), persecuting women (Anne Hutchinson and the Salem “witches”) and executing Quakers and Catholics.
3. Rhode Island and Providence Plantations – getting the hell away from Massachusetts to worship in peace. The first colony to allow all believers liberty of conscience, so it’s no coincidence that the oldest synagogue in America is in Newport. Still has a congregation, rabbi, and services, too.
4. New York – founded by the Dutch as a commercial colony, taken over by Great Britain.
5. New Jersey – ditto, with the addition of a small Swedish colony that was also taken over.
6. Pennsylvania – founded by William Penn based on the principles of religious liberty and egalitarianism. Had exceptionally good relations with the local Native Americans, low public debt, and no militia until the French and Indian War.
7. Delaware – mixed origins, with Dutch, Swedish, British Catholic, and Quaker colonies all making up what is now Delaware. Ethnically and religious diverse.
8. Connecticut – began as a buffer against Dutch expansion, later settled by Massachusetts Puritans. Never as fanatical as the witch-hangers in the Bay State.
9. Maryland – founded by Catholics, not Protestants.
10. Virginia – commercial colony looking to exploit the raw materials of the New World, including the gold they mistakenly thought was there.
11 and 12. The Carolinas – commercial colonies, not religious.
13. Georgia – penal colony for debtors.
Bonus states:
14. Vermont – started out as part of New Hampshire and New York, became a separate country for fourteen years. Not religious.
15. Maine – part of Massachusetts until it entered the Union as a free state to balance a slave state. Always more tolerant than the Bay State.
So…the only colonies that were “deeply committed to…religion” were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Land, and the latter three of these were founded in response to religious intolerance. Maryland was NOT Protestant, and I’m shocked that anyone could forget something so basic. The remaining eight colonies were either acquired from other countries that did NOT found them as theocracies, or were founded for commercial reasons.
Looks like Lenny needs some history lessons as well as remedial pre-law.
OK
Richard Nixon was a Quaker, unfortunately.
Sorry for the double post, everyone! ðŸ™
“And oh, in case Leonard decides to read this again, here are the actual origins of the Original 13:”
Good, factual post ellid. Yes, I’m aware of the religious origins, or lack thereof, of the various colonies/states.
I just have admiration for the Protestant founders fleeing Europe. In fact, I have two books in my library written by William Penn, ‘Some Fruits of Solitude,’ and ‘No Cross, No Crown,’ written during his gracious accomodation in the Tower of London.
Pennis credited as a pioneer in human governance and democracy. Voltaire applauded Penn’s efforts, saying he might “with reason, boast of having brought down upon earth the Golden Age, which in all probability, never had any real existence but in his dominions.”
Or, have any of you been curious enough to read Roger Williams actual sermon, from which Thomas Jefferson borrowed ‘the wall of separation’ from?
So was Herbert Hoover.
BTW, fun facts about the Presidential oath –
– There are two forms. One can swear or affirm, depending on one’s religious convictions. So far only Franklin Pierce has affirmed, but either wording is acceptable.
– There’s no requirement for the use of a Bible or other religious text. Teddy Roosevelt didn’t, which is also the form military officers use when taking their oaths of service. John Quincy Adams used a legal text, and Johnson was sworn in on John Kennedy’s missal aboard Air Force One. Based on this, presumably a Jewish President would be sworn in on a Tanakh and a Muslim President the Qu’ran, not that either is likely to happen in the near future. God (or whomever) only knows what a Unitarian Universalist President would use, but my money’s on a copy of the Constitution.
– George Washington kissed the Bible afterwards for some reason that is lost to history, and Presidents continued to do so until Dwight Eisenhower decided not to.
– Eisenhower, Truman, and Nixon swore on two Bibles, not one. No idea why.
That’s very nice, Lenny. Too bad you didn’t indicate the same when you wrote that the colonies were founded on deeply held Protestant convictions. It’s even worse that you’ve read William Penn’s words and completely missed his belief in toleration and equality.
Quite pathetic.
He said Pennis! Seriously Leonard you must be a total glutton for punishment, you keep coming back for more after making yourself look completely foolish in all of your efforts.
Now now Ellid. He never said he actually read those books just that they reside on his shelf in his library. Much like his law books they are probably there just for show so he can try to impress his friends with more subjects he can’t speak with any authority on.
Wow…you’re far nicer than I would have been…I was going to say he probably doesn’t actually have the books, but rater spent the night on Google after having mud on his face yet again for spouting off without knowing what he was talking about.
Voltaire was a vicious anti-semite. From Candide:
“But he was so much imposed upon by the Jews that he had nothing left except his small farm…”
He wrote worse.
You have no idea how many times I was required to read Candide in college. I think 5 different classes assigned that book. I hated that damned book
The worst ever was Pamela. I tried to read that book at least six times, and after I fell asleep on the first page I finally gave up and used the Cliff Notes version. As Richard Armour put it, “It’s in six swiftly moving volumes – if you throw it out a window.”
Indeed but I couldnt stand how hopelessly optimistic Candide was the character was too unrealistic
Agreed. Worse for me was one we had to read in parallel with Candide for some reason: The Little Prince by Saint-Exupery.
It took me quite a while to remember its name, that is the impression it made on me. I only found it because I remembered it had something to do with a baobab tree and Google is a wonderfull thing.
Never had to read Pamela. But The Brothers Karamazov was definitely a cure for insomnia. I ended up using the Cliff Notes too. I was the only one in the class that aced the exam.
Were there birthers in the 19th century? According to Wikipedia, the father of the 21st president, Chester Alan Arthur, was a British subject at the time of Chester’s birth. Chester was born in 1829 and his father did not become a naturalized citixen until 1843. The article attributes this information to the father’s certificate of naturalization on file in the Chester A. Arthur Papers in the Library of Congress.
Yes, at least one named A. P. Hinman.
I actually thought Candide was hilarious, unlike The Little Prince, which I thought was stupid and cloying. Why anyone would pair them is beyond me. I also disliked the Narnia books, which I thought were pretty condescending, and I still haven’t forgiven CS Lewis for his treatment of Susan in the last book.
ellid: Why anyone would pair them is beyond me.
Me too. Philosophy Prof’s can be ‘eccentric’ at times is the only explanation I ever came up with.
I haven’t forgiven him for Perelandria or The Screwtape Letters.
We’re getting slightly OT again, but I thought I’d add my proverbial 2 centimes.
Voltaire is a much better philosopher and essayist than he was a fiction writer or playwright. One of the problems is that he so totally subordinates his fiction to the political or philosophical points he is trying to make that, as fiction, it quickly becomes clumsy, artificial or annoying. Voltaire is a writer of ideas, not characters or plots.
I think his MICROMEGAS is vastly superior to the overrated CANDIDE and still interesting for bits science fictional aspects. It is hard for a modern-day reader to truly appreciate how visionary Voltaire was unless you submerge yourself in the reality (political, societal and scientific) of what the 18th century really was like. I can’t think of many books today that are as far ahead of today’s times as MICROMEGAS was from 1752.
A lesser known work of Voltaire is an unproduced (or rarely produced?) play in which he imagines a “what if” scenario in which the Pyrenees mountains are flattened and France and Spain (its major enemy then) suddenly share an easy-to-cross border. It is an interesting work of “alternate history”.
A lot of the remarks I just wrote apply to PERELANDRA in which CS Lewis tries very hard to incorporate the tenets of his philosophy and faith into a loosely structured fictional form, and depending where you stand, succeeds or fails.
The issue of blatant anti-semitism is literary works is sadly something one encounters repeatedly until the very recent times — I’d say, post WWII — even under the pen of the most liberal writers. Let us recall that Voltaire praised China and Japan, judging them equal or superior to Europe, fought against slavery, fought for freedom of religion and for civil rights. He thought that Christianity was ridiculous, absurd and bloody. One could hardly have been more “enlightened” or “liberal” than he was in the 1700s. And yet the fact remains that there is not a single literary work of the 17th, 18th or 19th centuries in which Jews are not portrayed as caricatural, odious, grubby moneylenders or rag peddlers. It is truly sad.
My good friend the late Will Eisner wrote two graphic novels on the characters of Fagin and the origins of the infamous PROTOCOLS which I discussed with him, because I know a fair amount about 18th and 19th century French lit, and the subject would merit more ample developments. For example, few people know that before Joly turned the tract (which later became the PROTOCOLS) against the Jews, it was originally an attack by Eugene Sue against the Jesuits! (This coincidentally connects with my earlier remark about the thread of anti-religion in the French Republican tradition.)
Concluding on Saint-Exupery, I see no possible literary or philosophical connection between him and Voltaire — that is truly a bizarre idea. Unlike Ellid, I think the book has a great deal of value as a gently philosophical fable for children. It was one of my favorite books as a child.
I thought we were just trying to fill the deafening silence.
Lupin – thank you for the cultural background. It’s painful to read otherwise enjoyable books that suddenly talk about “greasy Jews” or have villains with big noses, dark hair, and surnames like “Levine” or something ending in “-ski”. I shuddered the first time I read the Harry Potter books and realized that Professor Snape is so close to the stereotype of the cruel, dirty, hook-nosed Jew. JK Rowling almost certainly isn’t aware that she revived this image, but *someone* at her publisher should have caught this before the first book went into print.
I’ll have to check out the other Voltaire titles – thanks!
As for Will Eisner – he was a genius, pure and simple, and I’m glad he didn’t live to see that horrid Spirit movie a couple of years ago. Why do they have to take old properties and ruin them?
I hasten to add that witches are widely portrayed in literature as having hooked noses. Even in Russian literature the witch Baba Yaga is described as “a wicked old hag with a nose like a snag.”
I never got that from it at all. My first impression was more along the lines of Snape as a Catholic Inquisitor. There were others in the Potter books that made me think ‘Jewish Stereotype’ though, like the magic wand shopkeeper maybe, but it never even occured to me about Snape. I guess were are sensitive to different things.
While I have sympathy for those who have lived racism that I will probably never glimpse and acknowledge that they have ‘hot buttons’ that remind them of bad memories, I also think there is a place for literary archetypes in story telling. It is troubling that through history, from Shakespeare to Dickens, that particular stereotype has been shouldered by the Jew. But that is not so much the fault of the story teller as the society that squeezed the Jew into populating that sociological niche. It you are talking about money lenders in medieval Europe, you are talking about Jews, aren’t you? Should the story teller be untruthful?
In Dickens’ Oliver Twist Fagin is obviously a stereotypical Jewish crook and miser. No punches are pulled about his priorities, and Dickens drew a lot of flak for the overt anti-semitism. He always maintained that no offense was intended, that he was simply telling the truth about the society of the day. However, he recognized that he had emphasized Fagin’s Jewishness more than necessary (e.g. referring to him as ‘the Jew’ much more often than ‘Fagin’) and revised later editions to tone it down.
However, I would maintain that Fagin is much more sympathetic that Bill Sikes or even for that matter, Mr. Bumble (and yes, I mean in the book, not the musical version). So even where Dickens is being a racist by rehearsing an anti-Semitic stereotype, he is being even more scathing towards one of his own ‘tribe’.
In real life the Roma people in France are today being threatened with expulsion because of this exact same stereotype of being fringe dwellers and habitual petty criminals. Reminds me of 15th century Europe and the expulsions from Spain and Portugal. If I think about it, Snapes seems closer to a Gypsy than a Jew, being a dealer in potions rather than a money lender after all.
Humbuggery! (j/k)
I very much recommend Will Eisner’s FAGIN THE JEW for a reinterpretation of Dickens’ text from the eyes of a brilliant Jewish author.
Voltaire was, as I said, a better philosopher and polemicist than fiction writers — except for his ideas (a little like Asimov). There’d be nothing surprising in disliking his fiction.
As always there is plenty of room for debate.
Limiting myself to a few undisputed facts:
1) there are “travelers”/ “roms” / “gypsies” who are French citizens, and some who are Romanian and/or Bulgarian citizens. This is important.
Romania and Bulgaria while part of the EU are not part of the Schengen space, so its citizens have more limited rights to stay in Schengen countries than, say, Belgians or Germans. If one goes by the current laws on the books, the French Government has the right to expel Roms who are in France for longer than 90 days without various permits. However having issued a directive explicitly targeting Roms for enforcement (as opposed to, say, “Bulgarians” or simply “aliens from non Schengen countries”) does contravene both the French Constitution and some EU human rights policies. The directive has since been amended, but its intent and impact remains transparently clear.
No one at all has suggested doing anything to go after or bother in any way French Roms.
2) The sad fact is that, just as they were Jewish money lenders in the middle ages etc — for historical reasons created by the Christians — there are Rom gangs of organized thieves reporting to “godfathers” in Romania who are very active in Spain, Italy and France — just as there is the Mafia in Sicily and the ‘Ndrangheta in Southern Italy. This is not racism; it is a fact. The first to suffer from these are in fact the honest, law-abiding people of the same region/culture who are the first designated victims.
The BBC (which takes great pains to be “fair and balanced”) screened a documentary made a Rom reporter entitled GIPSY CHILD THIEVES
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mkjyd
which is anything but racist, caricatural or simplistic, and yet is a huge eye opener into these thieves rings.
While making progress in their fight against their own criminal families, the Italians have had only moderate success, so it is fair to assume that the Romanians will not be able to solve the problem of the Rom criminality, especially since those people live objectively in much greater poverty.
Lupin,
Excuse me if I consider you to be my go to guy about all things French, but well, I respect your viewpoint.
My father passed onto me the vile address by Geet Wilders who claims that Muslims are taking over Europe, and that Muslim gangs are driving Jews out of France.
I have looked for a cogent rebuttal to this, so i can pass it on- would you have any comment about the situation in France and Europe?
Geet Wilders is a nutcase. You might as well quote Glenn Beck.
In fact there are more Jewish people in France than in the whole of Canada. I think we have the second largest diaspora in the world, after the USA.
http://www.jewishtemples.org/
“Muslim gangs” is a meaningless concept. We have youth gangs, due to socio-economic conditions, comprised of French citizens, some of who may loosely be considered muslims.
As an (obvious) Potter fan, I have to protest this interpretation — given that the Snapes character is revealed in the end to have been staunchly loyal to Dumbledore & the memory of Harry’s mother, Lily — and to heroically sacrifice his life in the struggle against Voldemort. Snapes is also revealed to have been victimized cruelly by the taunts of Harry’s father, James …. so if you had read all 7 volumes you would know that Snapes is one of the most positively portrayed characters, although also the most complex. (Also, even if you didn’t read the whole series…. I felt Snapes’ ultimate heroism was foreshadowed throughout … the only thing that dismayed me as a reader was the ending of the 6th book, as it felt like a betrayal of everything I expected…. though of course, as revealed in the 7th book, it wasn’t. )
Coupled with the recurring theme throughout of racism of the “pureblood” followers of Voldemort against the many “halfblood” characters in the story (including Snapes) — I think it’s very hard to draw that conclusion merely from the physical description of Snapes.
Geert Wilders. And unfortunately he is not a nutcase, but a dangerous man who uses anti-Islam feelings to realize an extreme right programme. He’s actually already conceded on any point of his populist programme that could be conceived as “socialist”. (like maintaining the pension age)
You are right about the youth gangs. There is a problem, a big problem, however, when the same young people turn to radical Islam and suddenly disappear during the school holidays. In Holland, a number of them turned out to have spent their holidays in Chechnya.
The Geert Wilders screed that was sent to me is being copied and pasted almost verbatim though without necessarily attributing it to him.
To me its obvious that this guy is pouring out filth, but I was hoping that someone had seen an open letter or rebutall to his points somewhere that I could pass onto my father in case he felt like forwarding it back to his alarmist friends.
Basically i just pointed out that 10 years ago we were being warned about Arabs, 20 years ago about Communists, 40 years ago Commie Chinese, 80 years ago Jews, 100 years ago Catholics- now its Muslms and Illegal aliens- why do people have this deep desire to have the American public fear ‘others’?
How else would conservatives get voted into office?
Remember, liberals are:
soft on communism
some are communists
weak on national defense
believe in race mixing
Sound familiar? The game remains the same, just the villians change.
I agree.
I’ve definitely read all seven books, and agree that Snape is, on at least some level, probably the true hero of the books. I like him a lot better than Harry, and thought his death was dreadful – didn’t the poor SOB have a single happy moment in his entire life?
That said, Snape’s initial appearance and portrayal made me uncomfortable, especially since they’re similar to the portrayal of Jews in Victorian popular fiction in Britain (I was thinking particularly of a minor character in the first Scarlet Pimpernel book). I’d LOVE to see someone do a Wicked and rewrite the whole Potter series from the point of view of Snape and the Slytherins, preferably without the fanfic cliches of Draco in leather pants… 🙂
And oh, confession time: not only have I read the Potter books, I’ve been a panelist at two Harry Potter conferences. Yes, really 🙂
Some like Orly Taitz argue that act of Chester A. Arthur father becoming a citizen made the 21st president a natural born citizen. Other birfers, just ignore it. So, to answer your question: The birfers were stuck with their fingers in their ears humming to themselves.
There still isn’t anything coming from the Lakin camp, but there are still articles based on misinformation arguing for Lakin. However, I wonder why birthers continue to argue that value of Lakin’s status as a “decorated Army Flight Surgeon” has relevance to his position. Lakin could have chosen to resign his commission instead he chose to tarnish his military record.
In my mind both are not mutually exclusive. Hitler was a nutcase too. And dangerous.
i suspect that the afp is remaining quiet to help keep the rest of us entertained by classic birferisms like this one at free republic:
There is an interesting thread at CAAFlog about Jensen’s failure to follow up on his vow to seek a writ to overturn Judge Lind’s ruling on Lakin’s discovery requests. Check out the comments to see yguy get slapped down yet again.
http://www.caaflog.com/2010/09/23/lakin-lull/
There will be a motion hearing on September 28 and the trial is scheduled to begin on October 13.
—
However, it was noted that their was a time limit that he had to make a filing. I wonder how long Lakin will use Jensen is legal counsel.
A report on today’s Lakin hearing from the National Institute of Military Justice blog. Essentially, the judged has ruled that the orders given to Lakin were lawful and he cannot raise any of his “issues” about Obama in his defense:
One of our 3L student interns who is also an Army veteran made the trek up I-295 today to watch the latest hearing in the strange case of LTC Terrence Lakin, the Army doctor who refused to obey various orders related to a deployment to Afghanistan.
At today’s court-martial session, the defense and trial counsel argued a number of motions. The defense first argued that the military judge should abate the court-martial until the Army Court of Criminal Appeals rules on a writ petition the defense inexplicably (“for reasons I can’t get into right now,” according to a defense counsel) filed just yesterday, in response to the military judge’s ruling on September 2. The defense also attempted to convince the military judge that several prospective witnesses who were the subject of prosecution motions in limine were relevant to the defense case. These witnesses included former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and a retired Air Force general. The defense sought to qualify these gentlemen as experts in the areas of constitutional history and military training regarding the chain of command and obedience to orders, respectively.
The trial counsel argued that bringing evidence of motivation for refusal to follow the orders was irrelevant and should be excluded, citing a previous anthrax shot refusal case in which the military judge did just that. (I’m not sure which case it was, but the case of another military doctor–Air Force Captain John Buck–comes to mind.)
The military judge responded by determining that the orders (Specifications 1-3 of Charge II) given LTC Lakin were lawful. She continued by taking judicial notice of an Army regulation regarding orders and ruling that the witnesses who were the subject of the government motion in limine were precluded from testifying as experts, although they could end up testifying in sentencing if the case proceeds that far. Furthermore, the military judge granted the prosecution motions to prevent the defense from raising irrelevant issues regarding President Obama’s eligibility to serve as the commander-in-chief and LTC Lakin’s motivation for disobeying the deployment orders during the findings phase of the trial. Again, the motivation might become relevant in sentencing.
Hearing this, the civilian defense counsel remarked that this gutted the defense case, and he had to put on some sort of defense. Apparently, LTC Lakin is chomping at the bit to testify in his own defense, so that might be the sum total of the defense case after today’s rulings.
The court-martial is set to resume at Ft. Meade on November 4. Stay tuned for more on this saga.
h/t to Charlie Fowler, CAAFlog, and Phil Cave for today’s reporting and the previous commentary on this case.
Posted by Michelle Lindo McCluer at 1:12 PM
http://www.nimjblog.org/2010/09/ltc-lakin-court-martial-update-judge.html