Main Menu

Ballot challenges: Concentrating in Georgia

Four separate ballot challenge appeals were filed in Georgia in the wake of the decision by Secretary of State Brian Kemp to keep Barack Obama on the Georgia Presidential Preference Primary Ballot, slated for March 6.

Obama’s  attorney, Michael Jablonski, filed a motion in the Superior Court of Fulton County to consolidate the cases. Jablonski argued that all the cases were similar, and that it would be easier for him and for the Secretary of State to litigate one case instead of 4.  Mark Hatfield, the attorney for Powell and Swensson, argued against having his two cases consolidated with that of Welden and most vigorously against joining with that of David Farrar, Lax, Judy and Roth  (formerly represented by Orly Taitz). Hatfield feels that combination of his legal theories about natural born citizenship with conspiracy theories about identity theft and vital records fraud (Farrar) will prejudice his case.

In a pair of orders issued Thursday, the two judges (Newkirk and Brasher) assigned to Hatfield’s clients (Swensson and Powell respectively) ordered that these cases were related to that of Farrar (et al.) and transferred the cases to Judge Cynthia D. Wright who is assigned to hear the Farrar appeal. On Friday, Judge Schwall ordered the Welden case transferred (I haven’t seen the order but I presume it’s being transferred to Judge Wright also). This isn’t consolidation, yet. Since Welden, Powell and Swensson all argue similar legal theories (albeit with different evidence), it makes perfect sense to consolidate these cases. Pro se plaintiff Farrar, on the other hand, requests the same result but under a very different set of alleged facts and legal theories.

, , , , , ,

50 Responses to Ballot challenges: Concentrating in Georgia

  1. avatar
    richCares February 25, 2012 at 11:22 am #

    it’s obvious that these people know their appeals will fail, why are they doing it? Is it that birthers love to fail, that’s how they get their joy?

  2. avatar
    Norbrook February 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    It’s pretty obvious that Hatfield is not impressed with Orly.

    the likelihood of prejudice to my clients’ cases as a result of the anticipated style of presentation of the Farrar case.

    In other words “the insane idiot from California is going to make a mess that I have no desire to be near.”

  3. avatar
    gorefan February 25, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

    richCares: why are they doing it?

    That is a good question. There is only a slight chance this is going to be heard and ruled on before the March 6th Primary and after that the Supreme Courts (Georgia and US) won’t even consider it because it will be moot.

    On the other hand, there is the case of Tisdale v. Obama where a Federal judge has ruled that it is settled law that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. Now Tisdale is going to appeal to the 4th Circuit and he is getting virtually no help from the birthers SuperPAc set up to take on ballot challenges. His appeal has significant problems and it could be denied for a other reasons. But how devastating is it going to be if the 4th Circuit also rules that anyone born in the US is natural born.

    Yet birthers are wasting their time on ballot challenges that cannot possible succeed (Florida (no primary), California (existing precedent), Arizona (no primary), Pennslyvania), it makes mo sense.

  4. avatar
    John Reilly February 25, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

    It makes the same sense as not appealing Ankeny to the U S Supreme Court (although I doubt cert would have been granted). They are not interested in winning. They are interested in theater.

  5. avatar
    RuhRoh February 25, 2012 at 1:03 pm #

    richCares: it’s obvious that these people know their appeals will fail, why are they doing it? Is it that birthers love to fail, that’s how they get their joy?

    I’m not sure that they do know their appeals will fail. Don’t overlook that a significant part of the reward system of being a conspiracy theorist is the belief that you, and only you, are capable of discerning how the world really works–call it a sense of intellectual superiority. Many conspiracy theorists really do believe that they are not only the smartest people in the room, but in all of human history. Some of them do believe that they will eventually win.

    Others treat each failure as confirmation that the entire system is corrupt. Losing actually supports their beliefs and gives them a sense of renewed urgency.

    And of course there are also those who don’t actually believe that the POTUS is ineligible and are simply happy to publicly smear him every chance they get.

  6. avatar
    Daniel February 25, 2012 at 2:00 pm #

    RuhRoh: Don’t overlook that a significant part of the reward system of being a conspiracy theorist is the belief that you, and only you, are capable of discerning how the world really works–call it a sense of intellectual superiority.

    “I know something you don’t know…I know something you don’t know…I know something you don’t know…I know something you don’t know…”

  7. avatar
    Foggy February 25, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    Hatfield is the wild card, to me. Irion is just a grifter trying to climb aboard the birther money train, though it’s hard to imagine that will provide him a lot of cash. Too many grifters and not enough suckers, is what it looks like from here.

    But Hatfield apparently has a legitimate law practice and is an elected state legislator. He may be paid something by Swensson/Powell, but are they paying for all the time he’s spending at his usual rate?

    Hatfield has been birfing since the Georgia birther bill. We had him on R.C. Radio an age ago, to talk about that. Unlike Orly, Leo, Mario, and the others, he’s not a hero lawyer in the tiny Republic of Birtherstan. Does he really believe in the “two citizen parent” nonsense?

    They must have a plan for what they’ll do after the primary. It’s not like they can’t see the timing as well as we can: There’s simply no time to get to SCOTUS before March 6. Anybody have a guess what the plan is to keep this litigation going after then?

    P.S. Orly says she’s in San Francisco ready to crash the GOP convention. Could be entertaining, and there’s a Fogbow member who will probably be there with video camera in hand.

  8. avatar
    gorefan February 25, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    Foggy: Anybody have a guess what the plan is to keep this litigation going after then?

    In his Motion to Expedite, Hatfield said that after the Primary the defense would contend that the issue was moot. He then said something to the effect that he didn’t believe that the issue was moot and was prepared to argue that point. What the actual argument is? who knows. Why didn’t he name the Georgia SoS to be a party to the appeal?

    How many teems have we heard a birther lawyer say that he/she had figured out the exact strategy for winning? Maybe this is just another example.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 2:59 pm #

    I’m sure it was much to Hatfield’s relief that Orly Taitz’s pro hac vice application was denied.

    Norbrook: In other words “the insane idiot from California is going to make a mess that I have no desire to be near.”

  10. avatar
    G February 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

    I think it is a combination of both, actually.

    The “true believers” amongst their Cult are delusional enough to believe their own BS and seriously think they have a “slam dunk Konstitutional Krisis”…if only they can get it before the right “brave” judge, before the “vast Conspiracy” gets to him first…

    The rest of them have always been about propaganda and theater all along. These are the cynical con artists that are also a major part of the Birther movement. They are just hoping for publicity, foolishly thinking that their mere perserverance keeps this an “issue” and a “smear” against the President in the public.

    This second group of folks are really just as delusional as the first. They live in a fantasy world where they think everyone is as susceptible and gullible to their BS as their devoted flock. They mostly only listen to the feedback within their own echo chambers and therefore are living in denial of how this issue is nothing but an utter joke and completely poisonous to their “cause” any time it gets mentioned or noticed beyond their borders of their own choir.

    John Reilly: They are not interested in winning. They are interested in theater.

  11. avatar
    G February 25, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    Oh good! That is the salacious story I’m waiting to hear about today… That truly would be awesome if it gets recorded and put on display. Keep us posted as you hear any update reports!

    Foggy: P.S. Orly says she’s in San Francisco ready to crash the GOP convention. Could be entertaining, and there’s a Fogbow member who will probably be there with video camera in hand.

  12. avatar
    RuhRoh February 25, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

    G: Oh good! That is the salacious story I’m waiting to hear about today… That truly would be awesome if it gets recorded and put on display. Keep us posted as you hear any update reports!

    I beleve she said she was going to show up at 4PM (Pacific), so I expect we won’t hear anything about it until after 7PM Eastern.

  13. avatar
    Northland10 February 25, 2012 at 4:20 pm #

    RuhRoh: I beleve she said she was going to show up at 4PM (Pacific), so I expect we won’t hear anything about it until after 7PM Eastern.

    No waiting… I want it now… now…. now 😥

  14. avatar
    G February 25, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    Thanks for that heads-up tip! I was unsure of the timeframe myself.

    RuhRoh: I beleve she said she was going to show up at 4PM (Pacific), so I expect we won’t hear anything about it until after 7PM Eastern.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    I was thinking of coming down to Atlanta again if there were any court hearings, but then I considered what might happen. There won’t be any witnesses or evidence presented. Orly is persona non gratis. At best 4 oral arguments. It would be a long trip to see no surprises.

  16. avatar
    Foggy February 25, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    Don’t give up on any interesting hearings yet, Doc. 😀

    What if Judge Wright decides to rake Hatfield over the coals for deliberately ignoring the rule about telling the court clerks about similar cases? He did the most blatant judge-shopping I’ve seen in some time.

    But yes, the “two citizen parent” issue will probably be decided without oral arguments.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 25, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    Hatfield wrote the court about the similar cases. No rake there.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81966477/2012-02-17-POWELL-SWENSSON-Letter-From-Hatfield-Re-Related-Cases-Tfb

    Foggy: What if Judge Wright decides to rake Hatfield over the coals for deliberately ignoring the rule about telling the court clerks about similar cases? He did the most blatant judge-shopping I’ve seen in some time.

  18. avatar
    misha February 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    John Reilly: They are not interested in winning.

    Want me to vote GOP? Have Gary Johnson as the candidate, and I’ll sign up tomorrow. Or Colin Powell.

    Or resurrect Nelson Rockefeller.

  19. avatar
    Adrien Nash February 26, 2012 at 12:55 am #

    Allow me to extend an invitation for all to read the proposed Amicus Curiae brief I wrote today. It could be the “Silver Bullet” to stop Obama’s ballot placement if read by a fair and unintimidated judge. It’s all self-evident logic that relies on the things everyone already knows but haven’t seen assembled into a whole picture, like the pieces of a jig saw puzzle. It’s four pages long, about 3,000 words in PDF format. No footnotes, no quotes, no opinions, just all pure facts, natural law, logic and common sense. Here’s a quote

    Natural American citizenship, unlike 14th Amendment constitutional citizenship, is not granted, nor declared by any legal statute, nor court ruling, nor constitutional amendment. It is not a gift nor grant of the government. The government did not create natural citizens. Rather, natural citizens created the government. It cannot impose any eligibility requirement nor regulation on their citizenship nor can it rescind their citizenship because they are citizens by nature. They are Americans at birth and by birth just as the off-spring of any animal species is what it is by birth to parents whose nature it inherits.

    But those who are citizens by law, or “legal citizens” are not eligible for the office of the President. Only those who are citizens by no legal means whatsoever are constitutionally qualified to be President because all legal means of citizenship involve foreign parentage of some type and therefore the legal means that grants citizenship to such persons is a form of naturalization law, or naturalization policy. On the other hand, natural citizens possess their citizenship by the principle that is outside of the realm of human jurisprudence. Instead it’s from the theological realm of Natural Rights. It’s something they’re born with, and it can’t be taken from them.
    http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/the-principle-of-natural-membership-amicus-curiae.pdf

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 8:46 am #

    Given my experience with your writing, it’s probably more like a Nerf football than a silver bullet.

    So would you estimate for us how many intimidated judges have already rejected theories like yours?

    Adrien Nash: Allow me to extend an invitation for all to read the proposed Amicus Curiae brief I wrote today. It could be the “Silver Bullet” to stop Obama’s ballot placement if read by a fair and unintimidated judge.

  21. avatar
    Reality Check February 26, 2012 at 9:06 am #

    They won’t read your racist garbage this far but if they make to page 2 I suspect that this will be the killer paragraph:

    Some examples of unnatural mixed parentage include the Romeo & Juliet combinations of very different backgrounds such as a pure-bred canine with a mutt resulting in mongrel puppies, -as in Lady & The Tramp), a horse and a donkey (a mule), a Native American and a Spaniard (a mestizo), a Caucasian and an African (a mulatto),
    a Capitalist and a Communist, a Russian and an American, a Sunni and a Shiite, a Jew and a Muslim, a Catholic and a Protestant, a theist and an atheist, and on and on.

    Adrien Nash: Allow me to extend an invitation for all to read the proposed Amicus Curiae brief I wrote today. It could be the “Silver Bullet” to stop Obama’s ballot placement if read by a fair and unintimidated judge.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 9:07 am #

    OK, here’s some advice on turning your Nerf football into a silver bullet:

    Delete the first two paragraphs in their entirety. No one at the court is interested in how you came to write your brief. A legal brief is not a blog post.

    Delete the third paragraph in its entirety. No court is interested in a list of the titles of blog articles you wrote. You already admitted that you’re not a lawyer and have no special qualifications and your list of blog posts aren’t academic publications.Skip it.

    Delete the fourth paragraph in its entirety. Nobody cares why you wrote the paper. So in summary, delete everything before the squiggly line except the title because none of them are argument or relevant.

    Delete the fifth paragraph in its entirety. Your fluff about “invisible foundation” and “black holes” is completely incomprehensible and unsupported. This alerts the reader immediately that they are dealing with someone totally out of the realm of normal legal argument.

    The sixth paragraph is pretty bad. It argues that the framers failed to say what they meant. I see what you are trying to say, but it is irrelevant and lacks evidentiary and argumentative support.

    In the seventh paragraph you provide a mini essay of your personal beliefs, but since you consider them self-evident you didn’t bother to argue or support them with authority. Courts will never buy that.

    In the eighth paragraph you make a veiled accusation against the judiciary by asserting that the Constitution has been “ignorantly and deliberately” ignored. Again there is no argument or authority cited. You assert a conclusion (that the Constitution has been ignored) BEFORE you argue that it has been violated at all. Of course it’s all the same in your mind, but argument doesn’t flow that way.

    Tenth and eleventh paragraphs: Benedict Arnold? You provide no basis for your claim that Benedict Arnold’s treason was considered by the Constitutional convention when drafting the qualifications for the President. Your speculation is not argument.

    The twelfth paragraph is problematic because it sounds like John Jay was responding to Hamilton’s suggested language for the Constitution, but of course this is not the case historically. Jay wasn’t at the Convention. You offer no foundation for introducing Vattel at this point.

    13. You make a false representation that Jay said (or meant) that the “natural born” requirement should be placed on those born AFTER the Declaration. There is nothing in the Jay letter that supports this.

    Your essential problem, and one you probably cannot overcome, is that since you think all of this is self-evident, you don’t provide any evidence, argument or authority. You just describe how you see things. No court will get past the first few paragraphs to accept your brief.

    So start over and I’ll look at it again.

    Adrien Nash: Allow me to extend an invitation for all to read the proposed Amicus Curiae brief I wrote today. It could be the “Silver Bullet” to stop Obama’s ballot placement if read by a fair and unintimidated judge. It’s all self-evident logic that relies on the things everyone already knows but haven’t seen assembled into a whole picture, like the pieces of a jig saw puzzle. It’s four pages long, about 3,000 words in PDF format. No footnotes, no quotes, no opinions, just all pure facts, natural law, logic and common sense

  23. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    Yo Charo–this is the kind of moronic, bigoted, birther b.s. that deserves unadultered, salacious-loving, ridicule.

    Reality Check: Some examples of unnatural mixed parentage include the Romeo & Juliet combinations of very different backgrounds such as a pure-bred canine with a mutt resulting in mongrel puppies, -as in Lady & The Tramp), a horse and a donkey (a mule), a Native American and a Spaniard (a mestizo), a Caucasian and an African (a mulatto),
    a Capitalist and a Communist, a Russian and an American, a Sunni and a Shiite, a Jew and a Muslim, a Catholic and a Protestant, a theist and an atheist, and on and on.
    Adrien Nash: Allow me to extend an invitation for all to read the proposed Amicus Curiae brief I wrote today. It could be the “Silver Bullet” to stop Obama’s ballot placement if read by a fair and unintimidated judge.

  24. avatar
    Arthur February 26, 2012 at 9:27 am #

    Cripes, I didn’t mean to make it seem that the material above came from Reality Check! Mea Culpa, R.C.

    Help me, Dr. C. You’re my only hope. Can’t you edit my grievous error?

  25. avatar
    Tarrant February 26, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    John Reilly:
    It makes the same sense as not appealing Ankeny to the U S Supreme Court (although I doubt cert would have been granted).They are not interested in winning.They are interested in theater.

    I do believe they are interested in winning, but I think they feel that if they aren’t going to win, they at least want to sling as much mud as possible.

    What they want least of all is anything definitive that shuts down everything they do from that point forward, which is why I think they deliberately avoid taking those kinds of cases to the highest levels.

    It allows them to state and restate their claim that “Courts are afraid to go on the record defining NBC.” “Why won’t SCOTUS chime in defining NBC for us?” “How can they call it settled law when there are still all these questions? How can they avoid taking the case when there are so many questions?”

    They don’t accept that the reason SCOTUS won’t take the case is that the birthers are the only ones asking the questions, and for everyone else, there is no controversy, and it settled law. Just because some nut says “Why won’t SCOTUS take the case about whether or not murder REALLY should be illegal? Why are they avoiding the question?” doesn’t mean there’s any actual controversy or that they should waste time taking a case (although there are times when I think SCOTUS should, when denying cert on questions that they get all the time, make a comment like “Cert. denied, (X) is controlling case law” because it might stop some of the appeals that come later – not just for birtherism but in other issues as well).

    Just a few days ago someone posted on Freep the standard “And no court or judge is willing to go on the record defining NBC because they’re cowards.” Another poster (Mr. Rogers, I think) replied that there were three that did so in the past few years (since birthers don’t care about Wong Kim Ark) – in Indiana (Ankeny), Virginia (Tisdale) and Georgia (Farrar/Malihi, although not judicial branch). The birthers there just for the most part ignored his post, or dismissed them with a “Yeah but they were wrong” or a “But those aren’t SCOTUS.”

    I would opine that the last thing the birthers want is one of the Courts of Appeal giving a fairly shut-down type of ruling that clearly says “Look, you guys are WRONG, Minor does NOT say what you claim it does, WKA is the case that matters, and birth in the United States is what matters.” That ends most of their cases cold. Sure, they can still claim the forgery or SSN angle, but those issues aren’t nearly as prevalent in Birtherdom right now. The golden goose right now is the Minor/2 Parent thing, and a court shutting it down cold would be devastating to birthers.

    That’s why, IMO, all the birther lawyers are ignoring Tisdale and trying to stay as far away from it as possible (and why they avoided Ankeny), when it would seem to be their best avenue for attack – because in that case the judge flat-out said that the two-parent theory is nonsense.

  26. avatar
    Reality Check February 26, 2012 at 10:43 am #

    😆 The perils of quoting! No offense taken.

    Arthur:
    Cripes, I didn’t mean to make it seem that the material above came from Reality Check! Mea Culpa, R.C.

    Help me, Dr. C. You’re my only hope. Can’t you edit my grievous error?

  27. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 11:05 am #

    “Adrien Nash: the Romeo & Juliet combinations of very different backgrounds”

    I would like to recommend to readers “Romeo and Juliet in Yiddish.” It will be on DVD in the Fall.

    http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/movies/romeo-juliet-in-yiddish-review.html

    Here’s the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ERyTmaGl4

  28. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 11:11 am #

    Adrien Nash: Allow me to extend an invitation for all to read the proposed Amicus Curiae brief I wrote today.

    You forgot to say, ‘Only white, male, landowners should be able to vote.’

  29. avatar
    JoZeppy February 26, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    Adrien Nash:
    Allow me to extend an invitation for all to read the proposed Amicus Curiae brief I wrote today.It could be the “Silver Bullet” to stop Obama’s ballot placement if read by a fair and unintimidated judge.It’s all self-evident logic that relies on the things everyone already knows but haven’t seen assembled into a whole picture, like the pieces of a jig saw puzzle.It’s four pages long, about 3,000 words in PDF format.No footnotes, no quotes, no opinions, just all pure facts, natural law, logic and common sense.Here’s a quote

    The problem for you is, that’s not how the law works. Some random crack pot doesn’t just get to pull something from his back side, call it “common sense” and pretend it has the slightest bit of meaning. You see, the clap-trap you wrote is actually devoid of any “pure facts, natural law (as if there as such a thing), logic and common sense.” The only relation this has to any “silver bullet” is the several of the Coors variety you consumed prior to writing this dreck. What you actually wrote is nothing more than your opnion…and considering you’re some random hack on the internet rather than a repsected authority publishing his opinions in a reputable journal of law, no one really cares what your opinion is.

    Adrien Nash:

    Natural American citizenship, unlike 14th Amendment constitutional citizenship, is not granted, nor declared by any legal statute, nor court ruling, nor constitutional amendment.It is not a gift nor grant of the government.The government did not create natural citizens.Rather, natural citizens created the government.It cannot impose any eligibility requirement nor regulation on their citizenship nor can it rescind their citizenship because they are citizens by nature.They are Americans at birth and by birth just as the off-spring of any animal species is what it is by birth to parents whose nature it inherits.

    Adrien Nash:

    Problem is, the people that actually matter…the courts, have disagreed with you. According to the courts, there is no such thing as “14th Amendment Citizenship.” You are either natural born, or naturalized. Your comments about “natural citizens” is just your meaningless attempts to make your own self styled definitions. And again, what the heck makes you so special that you can make up a definition, completely ignoring the long legal history of the law on the subject, and think it has any meaning to anyone besides your own deluded self? Quite simply. You are wrong.

    Adrien Nash:

    But those who are citizens by law, or “legal citizens” are not eligible for the office of the President.Only those who are citizens by no legal means whatsoever are constitutionally qualified to be President because all legal means of citizenship involve foreign parentage of some type and therefore the legal means that grants citizenship to such persons is a form of naturalization law, or naturalization policy.On the other hand, natural citizens possess their citizenship by the principle that is outside of the realm of human jurisprudence.Instead it’s from the theological realm of Natural Rights.It’s something they’re born with, and it can’t be taken from them.
    http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/the-principle-of-natural-membership-amicus-curiae.pdf

    Again, all this shows is you don’t have the slightest clue about how the law works, or anything else on this subject. If you’re really delusional enough to think any of the garbage you posted has any value to the discussion what so ever, I recommend you get professional help. I would venture that most 4th graders that took a basic civics course would realize that individuals don’t get create their own definitions for the law, and think it would have any meaning.

  30. avatar
    JoZeppy February 26, 2012 at 12:51 pm #

    Adrien Nash: Allow me to extend an invitation for all to read the proposed Amicus Curiae brief I wrote today. It could be the “Silver Bullet” to stop Obama’s ballot placement if read by a fair and unintimidated judge. It’s all self-evident logic that relies on the things everyone already knows but haven’t seen assembled into a whole picture, like the pieces of a jig saw puzzle. It’s four pages long, about 3,000 words in PDF format. No footnotes, no quotes, no opinions, just all pure facts, natural law, logic and common sense. Here’s a quote

    The problems with your “self-evident logic” is that it has no basis in reality, so it can be neither self-evident or logical. Neither is it based on “pure facts” (or any facts for that matter), “natural law” (as if there is such a thing), logic, or common sense. This screed of your simply shows you have less of a grasp on the subject of law than an average 5th grader, because at least they have the sense to realize that you can’t just make something up and pretend that it has any meaning on the state of the law. The only “Silver Bullet” here are the several of the Coors variety that provided the inspiration to write this mess.

    Adrien Nash: Natural American citizenship, unlike 14th Amendment constitutional citizenship, is not granted, nor declared by any legal statute, nor court ruling, nor constitutional amendment. It is not a gift nor grant of the government. The government did not create natural citizens. Rather, natural citizens created the government. It cannot impose any eligibility requirement nor regulation on their citizenship nor can it rescind their citizenship because they are citizens by nature. They are Americans at birth and by birth just as the off-spring of any animal species is what it is by birth to parents whose nature it inherits.

    This clap-trap only reinforces the fact that you don’t have the first bloody clue about what you’re writing. The courts are quite clear that there is no such thing as “14th Amendment citizenship.” You are either “natural born’ or naturalized. The phrase “natural born” is a legal term of act that has been around for centuries. Your attempt to pretend to devine some new breed of “natural citizens” not only displays an unmitigated level of ignorance, but new levels of arrogance. You see, the reason why those who actually know what they’re speaking of use things like footnotes and quotes is to show we know what we’re speaking about, have done some research in the use of the language in question, and that we’re not just pulling crap out of our backsides, which you have clearly done. Again, why should anyone care in the least about your musing, devoid of any basis in reality, on the subject of natural born citizens?

    Adrien Nash: But those who are citizens by law, or “legal citizens” are not eligible for the office of the President. Only those who are citizens by no legal means whatsoever are constitutionally qualified to be President because all legal means of citizenship involve foreign parentage of some type and therefore the legal means that grants citizenship to such persons is a form of naturalization law, or naturalization policy. On the other hand, natural citizens possess their citizenship by the principle that is outside of the realm of human jurisprudence. Instead it’s from the theological realm of Natural Rights. It’s something they’re born with, and it can’t be taken from them.

    The only problem with this is that it has no basis in reality. There is no such thing as “natural citizens possess[ing] their citizenship by the principle that is outside the realm of human jurisprudence.” Nor is there any “theological realm of Natural Rights.” This is all the product of your sucking down one too many “Silver Bullets.” We are all a little dumber for having read this. Do us all a favor and go back and delete your delusional rantings, and pretend you never hoisted it upon anyone else.

  31. avatar
    Northland10 February 26, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    misha: I would like to recommend to readers “Romeo and Juliet in Yiddish.” It will be on DVD in the Fall.

    I prefer it in the original Klingon.

  32. avatar
    Northland10 February 26, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Your essential problem, and one you probably cannot overcome, is that since you think all of this is self-evident, you don’t provide any evidence, argument or authority. You just describe how you see things.

    That rather aptly describes most birther arguments.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    I did finish reading your brief. I must disagree with your characterization of it. I found that it was instead: No footnotes, no quotes, no facts, all opinions and common nonsense. As I said before, since you find this “self-evident” you haven’t bothered to provide the evidence. Obviously your own opinions are sufficient for yourself, and writing such as this is appropriate for a personal blog. However, one man’s opinion is wholly inappropriate for a legal brief.

    Also, “offspring” is one word, not hyphenated.

    Adrien Nash: No footnotes, no quotes, no opinions, just all pure facts, natural law, logic and common sense. Here’s a quote

  34. avatar
    G February 26, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    I agree. I would add that most of the “leaders” pulling this nonsense are the ones that fall in the category of being con artists. That includes most of the lawyers (Leo, Apuzzo, etc.) trying to pull this cr@p. So yes, those folks will avoid participating in and appealing cases like Ankeny & Tisdale like the plague, for the reason you stated.

    The difficulty for them is if a case has an actual “true believer” plantiff behind it, instead of either someone who is also in on the con, or is just a patsy tool (see nearly all of Orly’s “plaintiffs”). If they end up with a “true believer” in the driver seat, that puts the con lawyer in a difficult position, if his client actually believes this schlock and has convinced themselves they will win and therefore, presses for a “real” appeal attempt. My point here, is that many of these propagandist manipulators who are also lawyers have intentionally stayed on the sidelines most of the time due to this very risk. Unless they have a good financial incentive and/or see a more mass-media smear potentiional, they aren’t going to put their actual law licenses on the line in front of a real court.

    Orly however, seems to be truly crazy and believe her own hype. She is on a crusade and has completely lost situational awareness on any of this stuff. She’ll endlessly file and pursue anything…

    Tarrant: That’s why, IMO, all the birther lawyers are ignoring Tisdale and trying to stay as far away from it as possible (and why they avoided Ankeny), when it would seem to be their best avenue for attack – because in that case the judge flat-out said that the two-parent theory is nonsense.

  35. avatar
    misha February 26, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    JoZeppy: Some random crack pot

    Please be polite. It’s psychoceramic.

    JoZeppy: Nor is there any “theological realm of Natural Rights.”

    Next up – divine rights of monarchs.

  36. avatar
    donna February 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    GA – Farrar v Obama – Appeal Ex Parte Motion

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/ga-farrar-v-obama-appeal-ex-parte-motion/

  37. avatar
    donna February 27, 2012 at 6:26 pm #

    GA – Farrar v Obama – Motion to dismiss

    A work of art. I believe a similar motion is filed in case of the other appeals…

    Farrar-et-al-v-Obama-Motion-to-dismiss-Farrar-GA-Sup-Court

    check out the list of cases

    The relief sought by the petition is directed against the Secretary of State, not the President. The complaint does not state a claim against the President.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/ga-farrar-v-obama-motion-to-dismiss/#more-22596

  38. avatar
    G February 27, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

    I predict that all of these will easily become consolidated into one case before the Appeals Judge.

    As I mentioned on NBC’s site,

    Yeah, it totally baffles me that all of these idiots and so-called laywers couldn’t even get properly file the appeal against the SoS of GA. That seems to be *obvious* to even the layman.

    Of course this shows how deranged their hate is towards Obama and how fearfully reluctant they are to take their losing case and have to go up against the GOP SoS of GA.

    Despite their protestations otherwise, I think deep down they all know that they have no case and that their goose is cooked here. They are just trying to weasel any false angle they can pull to make this into some sort of propaganda event… EPIC FAIL for the Birthers as always!

    The greatest irony here is that the BIrthers own stupid tactic to try to avoid serving and facing the SoS, creates the easiest reason to simply kill and denial their appeal attempts. As usual, the Birthers are only capable of cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.

    As always, I appreciate you always keeping us well informed and posted on these, Donna! Kudos.

    donna: GA – Farrar v Obama – Motion to dismissA work of art. I believe a similar motion is filed in case of the other appeals…Farrar-et-al-v-Obama-Motion-to-dismiss-Farrar-GA-Sup-Courtcheck out the list of casesThe relief sought by the petition is directed against the Secretary of State, not the President. The complaint does not state a claim against the President.http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/ga-farrar-v-obama-motion-to-dismiss/#more-22596

  39. avatar
    donna February 27, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    prego, amico mio

    previously, i asked on another thread if ANYONE kept count of the FAILURES

    i was ASTOUNDED when i saw the list

  40. avatar
    donna February 27, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

    G: did you seen that the cockroaches came out en masse in pa today?

  41. avatar
    G February 27, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    If you mean all the Birther ballot challenges that have suddenly cropped up there, yes indeed! I’ve made several comments about it on various threads here and at NBC’s site, where they were mentioned.

    …But if there is further cockroach activity in PA beyond all that, please, tell me more…

    donna: G: did you seen that the cockroaches came out en masse in pa today?

  42. avatar
    misha February 27, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    donna: did you seen that the cockroaches came out en masse in pa today?

    Speaking of PA, I live in Philly and my building has a desk attendant. For the purposes of this story, I will say the employee is black. One day as I walked by her desk to walk Angel, she said to me, “are they still making a fuss about the birth certificate?” I said it’s getting worse.

    She replied, “no white man ever had to show his birth certificate.”

    Thank you birthers. You are making Obama’s re-election that much easier, and poisoning the GOP well. ‘Bartender…’

  43. avatar
    donna February 27, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

    “…But if there is further cockroach activity in PA beyond all that, please, tell me more…”

    no, no more than that from nbc

    having NOTHING to do with obama, i find this a MORAL OUTRAGE

    when i see some of the comments to taitz on her website, her fans actually believe what she says and probably send her money

    she says “evidence”, “sworn affidavits” and “witnesses” like it means something in the REAL LEGAL WORLD

    i ABHOR seeing people taken advantage of like this

    i don’t know how it is in your state, but in ny you attach retainer agreements to pleadings

    timeslips are kept and monthly bills substantiating expenses are annexed

    who knows how much money is being collected and where it’s going?

    when stephen colbert started his superpac, OVER $1 MILLION came in

    can you IMAGINE?

  44. avatar
    RuhRoh February 27, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    donna: “…But if there is further cockroach activity in PA beyond all that, please, tell me more…”no, no more than that from nbc having NOTHING to do with obama, i find this a MORAL OUTRAGE when i see some of the comments to taitz on her website, her fans actually believe what she says and probably send her money she says “evidence”, “sworn affidavits” and “witnesses” like it means something in the REAL LEGAL WORLDi ABHOR seeing people taken advantage of like this

    I don’t feel sorry for them because they are motivated by hate and bigotry. They deserve whatever they bring upon themselves. Her supporters are equally morally repugnant, so it’s very difficult for me to consider them “victims”.

  45. avatar
    donna February 27, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

    “I don’t feel sorry for them because they are motivated by hate and bigotry.”

    i guess

    then i blame the courts for not putting a stop to this

    i think only once were attorney fees awarded and it was under $900.

    only once were sanctions imposed on taitz for $20k

    in nh, REPUBLICAN bettencourt wrote: Please, Dr. Taitz, go away and leave New Hampshire alone.”

    and today she’s BACK:

    NH – Orly v Obama – Motion for reconsideration

    Orly: I filed a motion for reconsideration with the ballot law commission in NH based on the evidence presented in court in GA. I did not get an answer yet. Please, contact them

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/nh-orly-v-obama-motion-for-reconsideration/

    “evidence presented in GA” which went where?

    NO MENTION of malihi’s recommendation nor sos’ kemp’s order

  46. avatar
    RuhRoh February 27, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

    donna: then i blame the courts for not putting a stop to thisi think only once were attorney fees awarded and it was under $900.only once were sanctions imposed on taitz for $20kin nh, REPUBLICAN bettencourt wrote: Please, Dr. Taitz, go away and leave New Hampshire alone.” and today she’s BACK: NH – Orly v Obama – Motion for reconsideration Orly: I filed a motion for reconsideration with the ballot law commission in NH based on the evidence presented in court in GA. I did not get an answer yet. Please, contact themhttp://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/nh-orly-v-obama-motion-for-reconsideration/“evidence presented in GA” which went where?NO MENTION of malihi’s recommendation nor sos’ kemp’s order

  47. avatar
    RuhRoh February 27, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    Meant to get a reply in there!

    The courts and the CA bar could certainly be more active in disciplining Taitz, yes. I think everyone shares your frustration there.

  48. avatar
    donna February 27, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    i understand the bar associations are backlogged but the courts have no such problem

    it would be NOTHING for them to impose sanctions – these buffoons appeal everything anyway

    the 20k was affirmed all the way up to the supremes

  49. avatar
    G February 27, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

    I’m with you there. From the courts standpoint, I think Orly is long overdue for more penalties and sanctions. IMO, every single court or hearing involving Orly has been more lenient and tolerant of her ineptitude and unprofessional antics than necessary.

    In terms of people donating to her, I have no problems with fools throwing their money away stupidly. I have no sympathy for her delusional followers nor her.

    My only concern in those situations is that it seems really questionable and sort of “skeevy” for a lawyer to be pushing for PayPal donations and such. It just seems very at odds with how a legal practice is ethically supposed to work. Either your clients are paying you, or you take their case pro-bono, or for some sort of conditional payment upon winning… But PayPal donations…??? Makes the laywer and the whole lawsuit seem as nothing more than a scam and sham from the start…

    donna: i understand the bar associations are backlogged but the courts have no such problemit would be NOTHING for them to impose sanctions – these buffoons appeal everything anywaythe 20k was affirmed all the way up to the supremes

  50. avatar
    misha February 27, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    RuhRoh: I don’t feel sorry for them because they are motivated by hate and bigotry.

    donna: i guess

    See my comment:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/are-birthers-a-hate-group/#comment-158904