Birther displeasure with the Cold Case Posse

By on May 21, 2013 in Joe Arpaio, Mike Zullo

When Sheriff Joe Arpaio held his first conference announcing preliminary results of the Cold Case Posse’s investigation in to Barack Obama’s documentation, birther hopes were at a high point. Over a year later, it has come to nothing but press conferences, radio appearances, and an inadmissible affidavit appended to some legal briefs.

Birthers are making demands now, and one article at the Orly Taitz Esq. site [link to Taitz web site] details demands from Brian Riley, described as the organizer of the Arizona Tea Party. Riley summarizes the history of the Cold Case Posse and then demands:

A criminal complaint needs to be immediately filed with the appropriate authorities in my opinion. This does not look good and time is short.

Mr. Riley says that if Zullo writes another book before charges are filed, he’s going to ask for a refund. I left the following comment in reply (currently in moderation):

In their passion to unseat Barack Obama, the birthers really don’t pay much attention to the people who preach their cause, so long as they say the right words, and hold out some promise for results. It is, frankly, fertile ground for hucksters and con men.

I don’t know about Zullo, whether he’s a con man or a true believer, but I do know that the Cold Case Posse has made promise after promise that they haven’t kept, they presented some evidence that was faked, their "experts" tell stories that contradict each other from press conference to press conference, they refuse to testify under oath and blow off subpoenas, and they never actually do anything but seek media attention.

What amazes me is that anyone at this stage would be willing to give the CCP more time. Someone who hasn’t wised up already isn’t going to wise up tomorrow.

Here’s another comment left by someone else:

Zullo stood up and detailed his findings. Sherriff A stated he appointed this in front of the camera. He detailed the reason he solicited the investigation. As a Sherriff it is his duty to act on criminal complaints.

He can file fraud charges. Its up to the AG of the county and state to pursue the case. It is in his jurisdiction to file the complaint when people in his jurisdiction make complaints.

Someone is full of horse manure.

and:

… Anyone who thinks they will ever file charges is nuts. …

and:

Those Arpaio-enablers are our main impediment to removing the Usurper.

and:

Unfortunately, with the level of corruption on BOTH sides of the fence, I don’t see how this country is going to avoid a total and complete meltdown. The public’s anger is palpable – and it is being deliberately stoked by these pukesacks every day. They want trouble and by God, they are going to get it. Brace for impact.

30

Ramblin’ screed

By on May 21, 2013 in Lawsuits, Mike Zullo

Ramblin’ screed, ramblin’ screed
Why you ramble, without need
Wild and windblown, that’s how you’ve grown
Who can stomach a ramblin’ screed?

While I like to think myself above the baser pleasures of life, I must admit a sense of satisfaction reading the Alabama Democratic Party’s amicus response in the case of McInnish v. Chapman and the phrase therein that is this article’s title. Referring to Mike Zullo’s latest affidavit, insinuated into the case by Appellants, they said:

…the ADP assumes that it is unnecessary to further address whether this Court should consider the rambling screed that passes for an “affidavit” attached to the Appellants’ Motion to Strike. Virtually none of the information contained in the affidavit is admissible or credible…. The “affidavit” is inadmissible on its face and is composed of hearsay, speculation, and unsupported conclusions.

You can read the rest of that scintillating document here. There’s just so much more gravitas and validity when the Alabama Democratic Party says something, than when I say it.

While most of the non-technical concepts in the ADP response might have been found in comments here, they make one observation that I didn’t:

The ADP notes that the affiant signed the “affidavit” solely in his personal capacity and without any title, even an imaginary one.

That seems significant to me because it undermines the Appellant’s argument that Zullo’s investigation is somehow “official.”

45

Any day now

By on May 21, 2013 in Birther Psychology, Birthers

"The End is Near" sign held by Homer Simpson cartoonDoc, I know it scares you libs, but this is what it will [come] to very soon if your [messiah] does not release the information.

There will be rioting in the streets. There will be a forceful overtaking of the government. The will of the people will not be denied.

– March 4, 2009
– Comment at Obama Conspiracy Theories

An article could be written, taking quite a few hours effort, to catalog the birther meme of “any day now,” the imminent victory of the birthers just around the corner. This isn’t that article. I just want to ruminate a little on the subject. The commenter Heavy who is quoted above was a frequent visitor to this site in the early days and he always said that the doom of the Obots was nigh. Soon other commenters began replying with the phrase “any day now.” Four years later, not much has changed. Heavy never would get specific about what “very soon” meant, but I can hardly imagine that it encompassed the second term of President Obama.

Jerome Corsi picked up the theme, saying that the Obots wouldn’t be around much longer. He said on his Facebook wall back in 2011:

The Obots are on the run.

Nowadays, we have other commenters, such as Hermitian, who carry on the sense of urgency, such as this from today:

Will the rats begin to flee in two weeks?

– May 20, 2013
– Comment at Obama Conspiracy Theories

Lots of things fueled birther expectations (it doesn’t take much). I don’t keep track of these carefully—I think of them as water under the bridge. (Some folks have longer memories for such things.) A few that do pop into my mind are:

  • The Xxx v. Yyy lawsuit (207 included by reference)
  • Quo warranto, qui tam, et al.
  • Citizen grand juries (americangrandjury.org is offline today)
  • Birther bills
  • Larry Klayman
  • Terry Lakin’s defiance
  • Ed Hale’s documents of the Obama divorce and others
  • Donald Trumps investigators in Hawaii
  • Jerome Corsi’s mole in the Hawaii Department of Health
  • Various fake Kenyan birth certificates
  • Joe Arpaio’s “investigation” and promises of evidence
  • Zullo’s affidavit before the Alabama Supreme Court

I can’t look at this topic without remembering the few thousand predictions of the second coming of Jesus, most of which have passed by uneventfully. That has its own article, “The Long Form and the Great Disappointment.” The ability to slough off repeated disappointment, barely noticing it, is cognitive dissonance.

The birthers think that they are about to win and the the Obots are in fear and panic. The fact that they do not win, and the Obots do, does not affect their behavior. The Obots on the other hand quickly learned that birthers are perennial , and we don’t expect them to change or to go away, but rather we expect them to persist in vain hopes, with perhaps some decrease in activity once Obama leaves office, or some new conspiracy occupies their attention. Obama’s re-election does remove any sense of urgency that ever existed to oppose the birthers. There was always a faint hope that in a close election (it wasn’t) the birthers might just tip the scales. In my mind the game is over and now I mostly look back and think about the highlights. In practical terms, there’s no incentive to spend hours on one debunking of some birther nonsense, and I’m pretty much out of that business. The birthers don’t know that the game is over, and are busily moving the goalposts.

I must admit, though, that it is rather irritating to win and for the other side not to acknowledge it.

18

Cranking natural born citizen

By on May 17, 2013 in Citizenship

When someone comes along with a theory they think is obvious, but that hardly anyone else thinks is right, and the one holding the theory has no special expertise in the field, I’m apt to label the theorist a “crank.” I’ve done it on this blog. Today, however, I’m swapping roles and being the crank.

Most legal scholars believe that anyone who is born a US Citizen is a natural born citizen, and meets that piece of the eligibility requirement to become President of the United States. I fully agree. Where I fit my own definition of a crank is the way that I arrive that conclusion.

One mark of a crank is making legal arguments out of a dictionary instead of law and precedent. So I start cranking with the dictionary definition of “natural born” which is “having a quality at birth.” The Constitution doesn’t define “natural born citizen" but I have never found any document from our Founders that says “natural born citizen” has a special technical definition. Why does it have to be a “term of art?”

The U.S Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark cited approvingly Mr. Dicey in Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, where Dicey explains the difference between a British Subject, and a natural-born British Subject:

“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. … “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.

He did not say “a subject who was born on the soil of England,” but one who became a subject at birth. And of course as we all know, the Court asserted the convertibility of “subject” and “citizen.”

If you think about it, the lack of a definition in the Constitution makes sense because in 1789, citizenship was defined by the States and not the Federal Government. Congress only had the power of naturalization under the Constitution and therefore they couldn’t define the citizenship of persons already born that way. That is, if natural born citizen means “citizen at birth” then the Constitution couldn’t have defined it because states had different definitions. My theory explains a puzzle: why the Constitution uses this term it doesn’t define, and whose common law derivation is controversial.

Now, the legal experts are going to look to the English Common Law for undefined terms in the Constitution (see Smith v. Alabama and Ex parte Grossman).  That’s what lawyers are trained to do, but I say they are overthinking the problem, and as proof I keep coming back to the Naturalization Act of 1790. In that act, the Congress said explicitly that the children born of US fathers overseas were citizens. In the debate on that act, the argument was made that the United States should make provision for the children of its citizens born overseas, just has had the English centuries before. If it provides for someone, that means that the Act made people citizens at birth who were not citizens at birth before the Act. It means that these persons were not eligible to run for President when the Constitution was ratified. Nevertheless, that act called these new citizens “natural born citizens.” James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, was in that Congress, and George Washington, President of the Convention that produced the Constitution, signed it into law. Surely they understood that they were adding a new class of potential candidates for President.

If one applies the common law concept to the 1790 Act, all sorts of constitutional questions arise. If one applies the dictionary, there is no problem at all.

The plain English meaning of “natural born citizen” is anyone who is a citizen from birth. At different times in our history, the laws on who was a citizen from birth changed. The states originally defined it in various ways, the Congress defined it through various laws, and the Constitution nailed some of it down in the 14th Amendment. Whoever the law, statutory or common, says is born a citizen, that person is a natural born citizen.

One other mark of a crank is that they very stubbornly hold on to their theories, expecting other people to prove them wrong. Well?

314

The problem with public records

By on May 17, 2013 in Lounge

I got this “IMPORTANT BUSINESS CREDIT NOTIFICATION” envelope in the mail yesterday from Dun & Bradstreet:

Important Business Notification on envelope addressed to Hollow Tree Software

They come every few months. I also get the occasional phone call from D&B asking me for details about my company, Hollow Tree Software. The letter said:

Another company has requested your credit file and we wanted to review your file with you.

I used to reply to these letters, and when someone called I told them the same thing: Hollow Tree Software has been out of business for 25 years. You can search various business sites and learn that:

  • Hollow Tree Software was started in 2010 (it was actually ~1985)
  • It had an estimated revenue of $92,000 in 2011 (it was $0).
  • It is a software company (Hollow Tree manufactured computer cables and never sold software)
  • It employs 2 people (it never had any employees)

I’ve called D&B and written them multiple times. They just keep sending letters and calling. It’s just marketing to them, and it’s just marketing to pretty much everyone in the public records business.

One might wonder just how this spurious record comes to exist, and I am fairly certain that I know that answer. Way back when I applied to the State of South Carolina for a retail license for that company, I also bought a business membership in Sam’s Club. That name is still on my Sam’s account along with my current address, and that is the only place in the world where I put Hollow Tree Software and my address together. Sam’s provided the data that has caused the annoyance. I’m guessing that they got 2 employees from the two Sam’s cards I have (me and Ms. Conspiracy), but the estimated revenue figure seems to have been pulled out of the air.  Needless to say, I’m dropping my Sam’s Club membership.

I wrote about the fallacy of blindly trusting “system” outputs in my 2012 article, “The F.L.A.W.”

5

NRO: Faux left Cruz birthers

By on May 16, 2013 in Citizenship, Media

I get riled up by Conservative newspeak. This one from the National Review Online caught my eye, from an article Ed Whelan titled: Ted Cruz, Originalism and the “Natural Born Citizen Requirement.”

Here’s the offending bit:

I hadn’t seen any reason to comment on the left-wing “birther” attacks on Senator Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be president.  Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 to a mother who was then an American citizen. Under the laws then in place, he was an American citizen by virtue of his birth.

Have you seen any “left-wing” birther attacks on Cruz’ eligibility? I haven’t. All I see is ultra-right nut jobs raising the same issue about Cruz that they raised about Obama. Whelan did find one article at The New Republic that talks about an inconsistency in Cruz’ origanalist way of interpreting the Constitution and his own eligibility, but this is not at all an attack on Cruz’ eligibility, but about his way of interpreting the Constitution. In fact, the New Republic article by Noam Scheiber makes it abundantly clear that Cruz is eligible, saying:

Is someone who was born abroad so obviously a natural born American?  The consensus among legal experts appears to be, emphatically, “yes.”

I think it’s pretty clear that natural born is defined in such a way as to include everybody that has citizenship, and who got it other than through naturalization. So the fact that Ted Cruz had citizenship at birth, and he clearly did under the statute that applied at the time, it’s pretty clear that he qualifies as natural born.

The Conservatives would like folks to believe that presidential eligibility nuttery is an equal-opportunity employer with the right attacking Obama and the left attacking Cruz, but it ain’t so. The folks on the right are ones attacking both candidates, and the folks on the left are gleefully watching the folks on the right making fools of themselves.

I do take issue with Scheiber’s article, though. Members of the First Congress, many of whom were those folks who wrote the U. S. Constitution, passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 that explicitly made the children of U.S. Citizen fathers born overseas “natural born citizens.” It is abundantly clear from this Act that those founders understood that being born in the United States is not a Constitutional prerequisite for  becoming President.

The National Review Online is not the only conservative news outlet trying to make liberals into birthers. Newsbusters touts an article: WaPo went “birther” on Cruz, But They’re Not Alone. The Washington Post article cited also concludes that Cruz is most likely eligible based  on the authoritative report from the Congressional Research Service.

31
Older posts

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes