Main Menu

Latest from Collette

As promised, Jerry Collette sent me copies of the two Defense motions to dismiss Mr. Collette’s First Amended Complaint in his ballot challenge against Barack Obama in Florida. The two essentially similar motions are embedded in the article below (the 2nd one is more legible). I also include this link to his draft motion in opposition. Mr. Collette is a pro se plaintiff.

I don’t have time to analyze these right now, but I’m sure Jerry would appreciate constructive criticism of his draft motion, that you can leave in comments below. Note that he is scheduled to appear on Reality Check Radio June 19. Perhaps he will have some comments on the Voeltz hearing the day before.

Here are the motions in opposition:

FL 2012-05-20 Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint

FL 2012-05-11 Colette v. Obama FDP Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

, ,

133 Responses to Latest from Collette

  1. avatar
    Majority Will June 15, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

    The State of Hawaii is not a foreign country.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 15, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    The essential problem is Collette is arguing that he is right, not that the law is with him. He tries to goad the court into ruling on the case, rather than following the law as to whether it must be dismissed or not.

    I find it funny that Collette repeats that no court has looked at the 400 years of law on natural born citizen. However, the courts DID look at US v. Wong and that case summarizes the 400 years of law on natural born citizen (including Minor v. Happersett). Wong is now precedent, that that 400 years is water under the bridge, unless the intent is that the Supreme Court revisit the Wong decision. That is very unlikely.

  3. avatar
    Majority Will June 15, 2012 at 10:09 pm #

    A birther would rather refuse a lit candle and then curse the darkness.

  4. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 15, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The essential problem is Collette is arguing that he is right, not that the law is with him.

    You missed the point, Doc. I’m not arguing that I’m right. I’m arguing that the issue is open for litigation, not dismissal.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    He tries to goad the court into ruling on the case, rather than following the law as to whether it must be dismissed or not.

    Again, I’m not trying to get the court to rule on the case, just to keep it open. On a motion to dismiss, all reasonable assumptions and inferences are determined to be in the plaintiff’s favor. My argument is simply that the defendants have not met their burden to sustain their motions.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I find it funny that Collette repeats that no court has looked at the 400 years of law on natural born citizen. However, the courts DID look at US v. Wong and that case summarizes the 400 years of law on natural born citizen (including Minor v. Happersett). Wong is now precedent, that that 400 years is water under the bridge, unless the intent is that the Supreme Court revisit the Wong decision. That is very unlikely.

    Wong Kim Ark was about natural born citizenship as it applies to 14th Amendment citizenship, not presidential eligibility. The 14th Amendment did not amend Article II.

  5. avatar
    gorefan June 15, 2012 at 10:35 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Wong Kim Ark was about natural born citizenship as it applies to 14th Amendment citizenship, not presidential eligibility. The 14th Amendment did not amend Article II.

    Read the Appellant brief in the Wong Kim Ark case, the government says that the lower court declared Wong a natural born citizen even though the lower court never used that term.

    Read the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Fuller, he says the majority opinion makes Wong eligible to be President.

    The problem you have is you believe the 14th Amendment created a new class of citizens (14th Amendment citizens) that is not the understanding of the court. If you are a citizen by birth in the US, you are natural born period.

  6. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 15, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

    gorefan: Read the Appellant brief in the Wong Kim Ark case, the government says that the lower court declared Wong a natural born citizen even though the lower court never used that term.

    If you’re saying the case is full of errors, you’re right.

    gorefan: Read the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Fuller, he says the majority opinion makes Wong eligible to be President.

    He was pointing out the absurdity of using such a term, not stating the holding. Whether or not Wong was eligible to be President was not before the court. That’s my point.

  7. avatar
    JD Reed June 15, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    So, am I reading you right,
    Mr. Collette:
    “Wong Kim Ark was about natural born citizenship as it applies to 14th Amendment citizenship, not presidential eligibility. The 14th Amendment did not amend Article II.”
    You seem to be arguing that there are two types of natural born citizenship, one created by the 14th amendment, and one applied to the presidency untouched by the 14th Amendment.

    Wow! That goes even beyond the birther argument that there are three types of citizenship — naturalized, born a citizen but not a natural born citizen, and natural born citizen.
    Use you imagination, and come up with even more categories of citizenship!

  8. avatar
    Jamese777 June 15, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    The 14th Amendment refined Article II, Section 1 by spelling out definitively that there are two types of American citizens, and only two: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can become President, naturalized citizens cannot become president. The current day term in US law is “Citizen of the United States at birth.” There is no distinction in law that has ever been drawn between a Citizen of the United States at birth and a natural born citizen. The 14th Amendment begins with the words “ALL PERSONS…” “All” means everybody including those running for president or vice president.
    That is why three recent Court decisions looking at the natural born citizenship status of Barack Obama all ruled him to be a natural born citizen: Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana Court of Appeals; Tisdale v Obama, US DIstrict Court, Richmond, VA.; and Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court for Pima County, Tuscon, AZ.
    No court has ever ruled that Barack Obama does not qualify as a natural born citizen.

  9. avatar
    gorefan June 15, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    Jerry Collette: If you’re saying the case is full of errors, you’re right.

    No, what I’m saying is that in 1898, it was understood by the government that when the lower court ruled that Wong was a citizen at birth, their understanding was that he was natural born.

    Jerry Collette: He was pointing out the absurdity of using such a term,

    No, sir, he was pointing out that by using the English Common law to define US Citizenship, they were defining the term “natural born Citizen”.

    “And it is this rule [English Common Law], pure and simple, which it is asserted [by the majority opinion] determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. “

  10. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 15, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

    JD Reed:
    … natural born citizenship …

    Jamese777:
    … natural born citizen.

    Folks, while the defense it attempting to do so, I’m not litigating this issue on these motions. I’m simply telling the court that there’s more to it than just the Wong Kim Ark case, and a few recent cases that relied on it.

    I assure you, if I survive my motions to dismiss, we’ll cover this in more detail. Not now, though.

    Thanks.

    Best,

    Jerry

  11. avatar
    AlCum June 15, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

    Jerry Collette: You missed the point, Doc. I’m not arguing that I’m right. I’m arguing that the issue is open for litigation, not dismissal.

    Again, I’m not trying to get the court to rule on the case, just to keep it open. On a motion to dismiss, all reasonable assumptions and inferences are determined to be in the plaintiff’s favor. My argument is simply that the defendants have not met their burden to sustain their motions.

    Wong Kim Ark was about natural born citizenship as it applies to 14th Amendment citizenship, not presidential eligibility. The 14th Amendment did not amend Article II.

    Jerry, you are seriously confused. Nothing you’ve said is actually correct. Seriously, you look like a fool in your draft response. Please wake up and move on. It’s over.

  12. avatar
    Rickey June 15, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    Jerry Collette: You missed the point, Doc. I’m not arguing that I’m right. I’m arguing that the issue is open for litigation, not dismissal.

    Having read your draft motion in opposition, I can assure you that accusing the court of ducking and running if they rule against you is not going to win you any friends on the court.

    Apart from that, I can’t give you any useful advice because your case is hopeless.

  13. avatar
    Feinne June 15, 2012 at 11:12 pm #

    I really feel for those who legitimately believe in this whole birther conspiracy, constantly living a rollercoaster of hope and despair. Each time they chase that dragon and start going on about how ‘this time we’ll get that commu-nazi marxoislamist usurper!’ they instead fall in ignominious defeat and face public derision. And instead of blaming the people who have convinced them of things that are just not true, they just keep on doubling down because admitting they were wrong and reality was right all along is too hard.

  14. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 15, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

    Rickey: Having read your draft motion in opposition, I can assure you that accusing the court of ducking and running if they rule against you is not going to win you any friends on the court.

    Rickey, I think you’re right, and I removed that reference. Thanks.

  15. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 15, 2012 at 11:31 pm #

    Feinne:
    I really feel for those who legitimately believe in this whole birther conspiracy …

    You must have me confused with somebody else. I have already stated that people who believe he was born in Hawaii and people who believe he was born in Kenya are both operating on faith. I want to see more evidence.

    … constantly living a rollercoaster of hope and despair.

    You definitely have me confused with somebody else.

    … admitting they were wrong and reality was right all along is too hard.

    I have already admitted I might be wrong. I simply want more proof, from, what was promised to be, the most transparent administration in history.

  16. avatar
    Feinne June 15, 2012 at 11:39 pm #

    No, no, I wasn’t referring to you specifically. It was just a general comment on these continuing court cases, which are the latest in a long line of hopes.

    I wish you good luck, as I think you will need it given how these cases have gone so far.

  17. avatar
    G June 16, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    Hi Jerry,

    I just wanted to say that while I disagree with many of your assumptions and conclusions that I very much do appreciate your polite and professional demeanor and your willingness to dialogue with Dr. C and us and address criticisms in your draft.

    I very much enjoy your visits here and your ability to remain fairly good natured. While I don’t see the value in what you are doing, I am left with a positive impression of you as a person and human being and I sincerely wish you and your family good fortune in all the other aspects of your life.

    I am certainly not wishing you any “bad fortune” in this particular legal pursuit of yours, mind you… just pointing out that from my perspective, I don’t see any merit to it. But I respect your right to try (and even appeal, which is your right), as long as you are respectful of the court process and try to listen and learn when the court gives you their answers in return.

    Jerry Collette: Rickey, I think you’re right, and I removed that reference. Thanks.

  18. avatar
    SluggoJD June 16, 2012 at 12:22 am #

    Jerry Collette: You must have me confused with somebody else. I have already stated that people who believe he was born in Hawaii….are both operating on faith. I want to see more evidence.

    I’m sorry but I have no sympathy for you or your ilk. Who gives a flying fick what you want. You are intellectually dishonest and deserve all the ridicule that comes your way.

    Obama was born in Hawaii. Men did land on the moon. There is no such thing as Bigfoot or the Lochness Monster.

    Get a life!

  19. avatar
    Wolf June 16, 2012 at 12:25 am #

    “Operating on faith” you say Jerry? Fact is, we will never know for certain where the president was born, unless we were present at the presidents birth. All we can rely upon are verification from qualified individuals/government officials and verified documents. Obama has already presented two verified birth certificates, Hawaiian officials have verified his birth, the courts have have time and time again stood by those facts.

    Now, birthers may dispute the authenticity of these birth certificates, but as far as I am aware, we are yet to see any solid evidence that Obama wasn’t born on U.S soil, we’re not interested in self proclaimed “experts” and conspiracy theorists, we’re interested solid evidence. “Layers” are not solid evidence, owning a scanning a printing business does not make you an expert, applying your own personal intepretations of past rulings does not necessarily mean that everybody will follow those intepretations.

    Now, given that you dispute the presidents birth, are Hawaiian officials involved in this conspiracy?

  20. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 16, 2012 at 12:34 am #

    Wolf:
    … we’re interested solid evidence.

    Me too, which is why I want the original docs disclosed.

    Now, given that you dispute the presidents birth, are Hawaiian officials involved in this conspiracy?

    Once we see the original docs, we’ll know.

  21. avatar
    Wolf June 16, 2012 at 12:37 am #

    Two birth certificates have been released, shown to the public, and have been verified by Hawaiian officials on numerous occasions. There is no reason why there should be a need to show you personally the original documents.

    Why do you hold distrust with Hawaiian officials? Have they done something to make you suspicious of some cover up?

  22. avatar
    donna June 16, 2012 at 12:40 am #

    “Once we see the original docs, we’ll know.”

    IF that EVER occurred, birthers would THEN say that the democratic governor was complicit in a fraud for his friend, obama

    have YOU ever seen YOUR “original” docs, whatever those are?

  23. avatar
    Wolf June 16, 2012 at 12:43 am #

    donna: “Once we see the original docs, we’ll know.”IF that EVER occurred, birthers would THEN say that the democratic governor was complicit in a fraud for his friend, obamahave YOU ever seen YOUR “original” docs, whatever those are?

    Mr Collette hasn’t seen the birth certificates of the other presidents he lived through (Reagan released one to the museum after he left office, but it was a short form and unverified).

    For some reason, Collette has applied very special standards to Obama. He needs to see the documents for himself, and he needs to be satisfied with it’s authenticity.

  24. avatar
    linda June 16, 2012 at 12:46 am #

    If you don’t believe the images of the two certified copies that Obama has released, the info the State of Hawaii’s has on their website, the new recent Verifications, etc, why do you think seeing the original would be different? If it is consistent with what is already public, it will be deemed the original was substituted or a forgery or something else.

    When is the start of the lawsuits to see Romney’s original birth certificate?

    Jerry Collette: Once we see the original docs, we’ll know.

  25. avatar
    AlCum June 16, 2012 at 1:00 am #

    Wolf:
    Two birth certificates have been released, shown to the public, and have been verified by Hawaiian officials on numerous occasions. There is no reason why there should be a need to show you personally the original documents.

    Why do you hold distrust with Hawaiian officials? Have they done something to make you suspicious of some cover up?

    More interesting would be why he rejects Hawaii’s certifications, which constitutionally must be accepted, but eagerly embraces the most ludicrous disproven nonsense.

  26. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 16, 2012 at 1:41 am #

    Wolf: … birth certificates …

    linda:
    … birth certificate?

    Folks, like the natural born citizen issue, the birth certificate issue is off topic for this thread, and I participated in that.

    This thread is about the MTD’s and my opposition thereto.

    If I survive the MTD’s, the birth certificates will be an issue, and we’ll discuss it, fully, then.

    Best,

    Jerry

  27. avatar
    JPotter June 16, 2012 at 1:51 am #

    Man, the things you miss when you’re out buying groceries! I, too, would like to think Mr. Collette for appearring here to discuss his effort in a calm manner. Still yet, the level of suspicion he exhibits, even in these muted comments, is unreasonable, and betrays a disingenuous motive. He’s only able to maintain decorum, by avoiding any substantive discussion. and ducking all challenges. Mr. Collette may have convinced himself of his own virtue, but he’s coming across as a crank.

  28. avatar
    AlCum June 16, 2012 at 1:54 am #

    Jerry Collette:
    Folks, like the natural born citizen issue, the birth certificate issue is off topic for this thread, and I participated in that.

    This thread is about the MTD’s and my opposition thereto.

    If I survive the MTD’s, the birth certificates will be an issue, and we’ll discuss it, fully, then.

    Best,

    Jerry

    No, the birth certificate will not be an issue. The court will accept what Hawaii has already produced, and that is that. The Constitution requires it.

  29. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 16, 2012 at 1:58 am #

    Jerry Collette: Me too, which is why I want the original docs disclosed.

    What original “docs”…..plural?

    And exactly how would they be “disclosed” so that you would be satisfied?

  30. avatar
    G June 16, 2012 at 2:07 am #

    Valid points.

    JPotter: Man, the things you miss when you’re out buying groceries! I, too, would like to think Mr. Collette for appearring here to discuss his effort in a calm manner. Still yet, the level of suspicion he exhibits, even in these muted comments, is unreasonable, and betrays a disingenuous motive. He’s only able to maintain decorum, by avoiding any substantive discussion. and ducking all challenges. Mr. Collette may have convinced himself of his own virtue, but he’s coming across as a crank.

  31. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 16, 2012 at 2:09 am #

    JPotter:
    He’s … avoiding any substantive discussion. and ducking all challenges.

    I’m simply staying on topic. In my case, the upcoming pending issues will be the MTD’s.

    Has the defense raised any challenges sufficient to dismiss my case without litigating the merits? Have I sufficiently rebutted those challenges?

    Those are the current pending issues in my case that will be before the court in the next hearing, and the topic of this thread. I recognize that I, along with others, have drifted from that topic. I have, since, reoriented myself back to the topic.

    So far, hardly anybody has mentioned the MTD’s, or my opposition. Instead, most of the discussion has been on the primary issues of the case, which won’t even be before the court until and unless I survive the MTD’s.

    I hope this clarifies things.

    Best,

    Jerry

  32. avatar
    linda June 16, 2012 at 2:20 am #

    Mr. Collotte, in your draft motion in opposition, you either misquote, misrepresent or misunderstand the Court’s Order. You wrote:

    “A Federal Judge Has Recently Ruled That There
    Is Clearly a Dispute on the Issues Presented Here

    “In Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party (W.D. Tenn., Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, April 13, 2012),# the federal district court, found:

    “[The] issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial.’” Id at 7.

    “It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor [v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)].” Liberty Legal Foundation Order at 7-8.”

    The Court was stating the reasons why the Motion to Remand was being denied. The parties disputed Obama’s qualifications, which is a question of federal or constitutional law. Not that Obama’s qualifications are actually in dispute, but in that case.

    For next line, the meaning is clear in context of the Order:

    “There is a sharp dispute in this case over Plaintiff’s main contention that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and is otherwise disqualified from the office under the United States Constitution. It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of “natural born citizen” and the Supreme Court’s
    decision in Minor. The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case.”

  33. avatar
    US Citizen June 16, 2012 at 2:29 am #

    Doc, you have Collette spelled with only one L in the subject line.

  34. avatar
    linda June 16, 2012 at 3:06 am #

    Jerry Collette: Has the defense raised any challenges sufficient to dismiss my case without litigating the merits? Have I sufficiently rebutted those challenges?

    Yes and no, respectively. The defense has law and court decisions in support of their assertions. You reference the CCP “investigation” and statements in a publisher’s pamphlet as reasons to question Obama’s eligibility, but no law that supports taking him off the ballot. I would be shocked if the case doesn’t get dismissed.

  35. avatar
    Lupin June 16, 2012 at 3:17 am #

    I’m always surprised that the consequences of the absurd contention that, in order to be an NBC, one must have two citizen parents, are not more spotlighted. Were a court to find in favor of this absurd and wholly unfounded theory, the upheaval in American society would be so huge that it dwarfs the imagination: creating a new class of citizens, disenfranchising at the stroke of a pen millions of Americans… Truly, it is an idiotic theory.

  36. avatar
    Keith June 16, 2012 at 3:45 am #

    Jerry Collette: Me too, which is why I want the original docs disclosed.

    Once we see the original docs, we’ll know.

    Jerry, it isn’t the ‘original’ document, or any document that is the important issue. You really have to get over this.

    The important issue, the ONLY issue is the information on those documents. It doesn’t matter if the ‘original’ document is a piece of toilet paper. It is the information on the document.

    That information has been reported to you via the images of two official documents. Whether those images are honest scans of the original official documents or mash-fakes is irrelevant, the information on them is what is important. Furthermore, one of those images is of a photocopy of the original documentation.

    And again, the information on those images have been verified by the Hawai’ian State officials that are charged with maintaining the integrity of the original documentation of that information. They have verified it many times, showing the index data report, testifying under oath to the Hawai’ian State Legislature, press release attesting to the veracity of the information reported on those BC images, and finally in official verification of the information contained on the BC images, not once but twice. Finally, the information on the birth certificate images has been collaborated by contemporary, but admittedly non-official, newspaper reports and even eye-witness anecdotes.

    It is actually impossible that the information on the BC images published by the Obama Campaign and the White House is anything other than true and correct. Utterly and completely impossible.

    You say BC ‘believers’ are operating on faith as are BC ‘disbelievers’. I put it to you that ‘believers’ are operating on knowledge of the universe as it exists, and the ‘disbelievers’ are operating in a fantasy land. Not only is there overwhelming evidence that the information on the published BCs is correct, there is ZERO evidence that there is any reason to doubt anything about them in any way. Period.

    You attempt to imply that the Officials entrusted by the State of Hawai’i to maintain the vital records, Officials that have demonstrated their professionalism and expertise on a national level, somehow have no more authority or trustworthiness than the proven liars, forgers, fraudsters, ego trippers, con artists, and political operatives with a mud smearing agenda. In fact, your implication is that the Hawai’ian Officials are less believable than the ‘disbelievers’, because they have provided conclusive evidence and the ‘disbelievers’ have provided nothing but fantasy, tin-foil hat speculation, and fail after fail after fail.

    That you think that this attempt at false equivalence allows you to claim that both groups are likewise on the same level of ‘belief’ is intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, self serving, and most of all an insult to both the Hawai’ian officials professionalism and everybody else’s intelligence.

    Good luck with your court case.

    I predict you will lose, but refuse to respect or acknowledge the decision. Further your continued insane attempt to try to somehow get a court to nullify the 14th Amendment and reinstate the Dred Scott decision will also fail.

  37. avatar
    Majority Will June 16, 2012 at 6:50 am #

    Keith: Jerry, it isn’t the ‘original’ document, or any document that is the important issue. You really have to get over this.

    The important issue, the ONLY issue is the information on those documents. It doesn’t matter if the ‘original’ document is a piece of toilet paper. It is the information on the document.

    That information has been reported to you via the images of two official documents. Whether those images are honest scans of the original official documents or mash-fakes is irrelevant, the information on them is what is important. Furthermore, one of those images is of a photocopy of the original documentation.

    And again, the information on those images have been verified by the Hawai’ian State officials that are charged with maintaining the integrity of the original documentation of that information. They have verified it many times, showing the index data report, testifying under oath to the Hawai’ian State Legislature, press release attesting to the veracity of the information reported on those BC images, and finally in official verification of the information contained on the BC images, not once but twice. Finally, the information on the birth certificate images has been collaborated by contemporary, but admittedly non-official, newspaper reports and even eye-witness anecdotes.

    It is actually impossible that the information on the BC images published by the Obama Campaign and the White House is anything other than true and correct. Utterly and completely impossible.

    You say BC ‘believers’ are operating on faith as are BC ‘disbelievers’. I put it to you that ‘believers’ are operating on knowledge of the universe as it exists, and the ‘disbelievers’ are operating in a fantasy land. Not only is there overwhelming evidence that the information on the published BCs is correct, there is ZERO evidence that there is any reason to doubt anything about them in any way. Period.

    You attempt to imply that the Officials entrusted by the State of Hawai’i to maintain the vital records, Officials that have demonstrated their professionalism and expertise on a national level, somehow have no more authority or trustworthiness than the proven liars, forgers, fraudsters, ego trippers, con artists, and political operatives with a mud smearing agenda. In fact, your implication is that the Hawai’ian Officials are less believable than the ‘disbelievers’, because they have provided conclusive evidence and the ‘disbelievers’ have provided nothing but fantasy, tin-foil hat speculation, and fail after fail after fail.

    That you think that this attempt at false equivalence allows you to claim that both groups are likewise on the same level of ‘belief’ is intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, self serving, and most of all an insult to both the Hawai’ian officials professionalism and everybody else’s intelligence.

    Good luck with your court case.

    I predict you will lose, but refuse to respect or acknowledge the decision. Further your continued insane attempt to try to somehow get a court to nullify the 14th Amendment and reinstate the Dred Scott decision will also fail.

    Thanks for this excellent summary that is accurate, concise and completely incomprehensible to the birther bigots bent on propping up their vile notions of racial and societal purity, blatant arrogance, paranoid and unsubstantiated allegations of malfeasance and a puerile, dishonest political smear campaign.

    This case, like all birther nonsense, is DOOMED.

  38. avatar
    realist June 16, 2012 at 7:50 am #

    I suppose i don’t understand why all the interest in giving any moronic birther any assistance or “constructive criticism” on their papers, as it’s referred to. While he may well be a nice guy in many respects, he and his ilk are attempting to overthrow a legal election, shred the Constitution and subvert the law. They don’t deserve “constructive criticism” they deserve ridicule and contempt.

    The suit is a loser, will always be a loser. No amount of change or amendment or rewriting is going to change that. And thank goodness for that. The very precious judicial resources, time and money expended, wasting of the court’s time, taking away from people who have real disputes and deserve to have them addressed is despicable, just as the people who bring these suits are.

    Jerry created his own little DIY kit for filing birther suits, trying to garner a few birther bucks along the way. Now that the little kit is not doing so well he should get constructive criticism? BS.

    Doing anything to assist in prolonging the inevitable, wasting more judicial resources, encouraging birtherism, assisting in subversion in just beyond mind boggling to me.

  39. avatar
    Majority Will June 16, 2012 at 7:55 am #

    realist: They don’t deserve “constructive criticism” they deserve ridicule and contempt.

    Hear, hear.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 16, 2012 at 7:58 am #

    Both the Court in Wong and some of the supporters of the 14th Amendment said that the Amendment was merely declaratory of what was the law in the United States since the founding. The 14th Amendment was aimed erasing the errant decision of the Taney court in Scott v. Sandford. Others might say that the 14th Amendment was passed to specify that the freed slaves were citizens. Wonk Kim Ark was not a freed slave.

    The 14th Amendment is just one of many reasons that Wong was a natural born citizen.

    Jerry Collette: Wong Kim Ark was about natural born citizenship as it applies to 14th Amendment citizenship, not presidential eligibility. The 14th Amendment did not amend Article II.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 16, 2012 at 9:00 am #

    The way I look at it, nothing I or anyone else can do will result in the overthrow of the 2008 election. Making a birther lawsuit “better” doesn’t improve its chances of success. The few improvements I have offered to Mr. Collette mostly consist of suggestions that he delete things.

    I agree with attorney Van R. Irion who said:

    I agree that the rule of law is best served when courts are presented with the best arguments.

    I also believe that helpful suggestions build bridges and help to reduce demonization. While birthers may “deserve” ridicule, I don’t think it makes anything better.

    realist: I suppose i don’t understand why all the interest in giving any moronic birther any assistance or “constructive criticism” on their papers, as it’s referred to. While he may well be a nice guy in many respects, he and his ilk are attempting to overthrow a legal election, shred the Constitution and subvert the law. They don’t deserve “constructive criticism” they deserve ridicule and contempt.

  42. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 16, 2012 at 9:02 am #

    linda:
    Mr. Collotte, in your draft motion in opposition, you either misquote, misrepresent or misunderstand the Court’s Order.You wrote:

    “A Federal Judge Has Recently Ruled That There
    Is Clearly a Dispute on the Issues Presented Here

    “In Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party (W.D. Tenn., Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand,April 13, 2012),# the federal district court, found:

    “[The] issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial.’” Id at 7.

    “It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor [v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)].” Liberty Legal Foundation Order at 7-8.”

    The Court was stating the reasons why the Motion to Remand was being denied.The parties disputed Obama’s qualifications, which is a question of federal or constitutional law.Not that Obama’s qualifications are actually in dispute, but in that case.

    For next line, the meaning is clear in context of the Order:

    “There is a sharp dispute in this case over Plaintiff’s main contention that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and is otherwise disqualified from the office under the United States Constitution. It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of “natural born citizen” and the Supreme Court’s
    decision in Minor.The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case.”

    I quoted it verbatim and understand it completely and its context. In my case, the defendants are claiming that these issues are long settled. My point was simply that, since these issue are being litigated elsewhere means they are not completely settled.

  43. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 16, 2012 at 9:05 am #

    linda: You reference the CCP “investigation” and statements in a publisher’s pamphlet as reasons to question Obama’s eligibility …

    No, I reference these things to rebut the defendants statements that my assertions have no basis.

    My statement related to them was that, even if the court ultimately rules against me, I still have a basis for my claims.

    The substantive issues in this case are not before the court at the next hearing, simply the motions to dismiss.

  44. avatar
    Majority Will June 16, 2012 at 9:44 am #

    “My statement related to them was that, even if the court ultimately rules against me, I still have a basis for my claims.”

    Translation:

    “When I inevitably lose again, as those annoying rational people have explained why repeatedly, I’m still right and nothing that history shows, the laws demonstrate or relevant authorities say will ever prove me wrong.

    LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA. I CAN’T HEAR YOU.”

    Sheer birther genius.

  45. avatar
    Keith June 16, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    Jerry Collette: I quoted it verbatim and understand it completely and its context. In my case, the defendants are claiming that these issues are long settled. My point was simply that, since these issue are being litigated elsewhere means they are not completely settled.

    It doesn’t mean any such thing.

    It means that some people don’t understand the concept of settled law.

    Some people believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn’t change the fact that the issue of the Earth’s shape has been ‘long settled’ and that the Earth is, in fact, spherical (ish).

  46. avatar
    Sef June 16, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    Jerry Collette: No, I reference these things to rebut the defendants statements that my assertions have no basis.

    My statement related to them was that, even if the court ultimately rules against me, I still have a basis for my claims.

    The substantive issues in this case are not before the court at the next hearing, simply the motions to dismiss.

    So, you are relying on and championing the dumbing down that has been happening in America’s education system. Despicable!

    BTW, did you order a boxcar load of Imodium for Klayman?

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 16, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    See? This is what I meant by constructive criticism and why I invited it.

    Jerry Collette: Rickey, I think you’re right, and I removed that reference. Thanks.

  48. avatar
    Sef June 16, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    Sef: BTW, did you order a boxcar load of Imodium for Klayman?

    Sorry, that was Voeltz. It’s hard to keep all these numnutz straight.

  49. avatar
    Northland10 June 16, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    Jerry Collette: My point was simply that, since these issue are being litigated elsewhere means they are not completely settled.

    Now that’s just silly. If a court actually ruled for the plaintiffs in any of these cases, maybe, it would not be completely settled. The success record of 0 should point to the obvious, it is settled.

  50. avatar
    realist June 16, 2012 at 10:03 am #

    I agree that nothing anyone can or will do will overrule the 2008 election.

    Respectfully, since it’s your site and you allow me to play in your sandbox, I also would posit that this issue is a non-issue, always has been and always will be, and those who continue to put it forth with no basis in law or fact are a blight on the judicial system and America.

    I have no intention whatsoever of building bridges with seditionists who have no regard for the Constitution or the law and continually ignore facts and refuse to engage in rational thought.

    If Van Irioin truly believed that, he’d attempt to do so. He’s nothing more than a proven racist and puts forth provable and verifiable lies to the courts. He deserves nothing but utter contempt, in my opinion.

    What would you suggest next, we assist Orly Taitz as well? Apuzzo? Van Irion? That we assist them in their attempts to shred the Constitution and smear our president, based on absolutely nothing but rumor, inuendo and lies? If they can’t put forth a coherent factual and legal argument, that incompetence is their problem.

    Anyone who wishes to file these lawsuits, until and unless the courts put a stop to it, it is their right to do so, but I will, rather than assist them, if there’s a way I can assist the opposition, I will do so.
    Certainly anyone who wishes to do so, it is their choice and right, but for me, no thanks.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The way I look at it, nothing I or anyone else can do will result in the overthrow of the 2008 election. Making a birther lawsuit “better” doesn’t improve its chances of success. The few improvements I have offered to Mr. Collette mostly consist of suggestions that he delete things.

    I agree with attorney Van R. Irion who said:

    I agree that the rule of law is best served when courts are presented with the best arguments.

    I also believe that helpful suggestions build bridges and help to reduce demonization. While birthers may “deserve” ridicule, I don’t think it makes anything better.

  51. avatar
    Keith June 16, 2012 at 10:08 am #

    Jerry Collette: No, I reference these things to rebut the defendants statements that my assertions have no basis.

    If that is what your assertions are based on, then your assertions are based on nothing; on will-o-the-wisps; on irrelevant nonsense. Since your ‘basis’ is nonsense, your assertions are even more nonsense.

    The courts are not the intended audience of the CCP. The CCP ‘actors’ are after gullible marks to empty their bank accounts.

    Editors mistakes on a publishers client list portfolio are not going to oust a sitting President, nullify his actions, or remove him from the ballot.

    What I believe is that you would improve your life if you stopped attempting to turn the law on its head to fit your agenda and try to broaden your mind with some recreational reading. You could start with Arthur Miller’s The Crucible.

  52. avatar
    realist June 16, 2012 at 10:10 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    See? This is what I meant by constructive criticism and why I invited it.

    Well, of course Rickey was right, but a self-styled super-duper paralegal should have known that was improper.

  53. avatar
    G June 16, 2012 at 10:11 am #

    Very well said, Keith. I concur with your positions and conclusions completely.

    Keith: Jerry, it isn’t the ‘original’ document, or any document that is the important issue. You really have to get over this. The important issue, the ONLY issue is the information on those documents. It doesn’t matter if the ‘original’ document is a piece of toilet paper. It is the information on the document.That information has been reported to you via the images of two official documents. Whether those images are honest scans of the original official documents or mash-fakes is irrelevant, the information on them is what is important. Furthermore, one of those images is of a photocopy of the original documentation. And again, the information on those images have been verified by the Hawai’ian State officials that are charged with maintaining the integrity of the original documentation of that information. They have verified it many times, showing the index data report, testifying under oath to the Hawai’ian State Legislature, press release attesting to the veracity of the information reported on those BC images, and finally in official verification of the information contained on the BC images, not once but twice. Finally, the information on the birth certificate images has been collaborated by contemporary, but admittedly non-official, newspaper reports and even eye-witness anecdotes.It is actually impossible that the information on the BC images published by the Obama Campaign and the White House is anything other than true and correct. Utterly and completely impossible. You say BC ‘believers’ are operating on faith as are BC ‘disbelievers’. I put it to you that ‘believers’ are operating on knowledge of the universe as it exists, and the ‘disbelievers’ are operating in a fantasy land. Not only is there overwhelming evidence that the information on the published BCs is correct, there is ZERO evidence that there is any reason to doubt anything about them in any way. Period. You attempt to imply that the Officials entrusted by the State of Hawai’i to maintain the vital records, Officials that have demonstrated their professionalism and expertise on a national level, somehow have no more authority or trustworthiness than the proven liars, forgers, fraudsters, ego trippers, con artists, and political operatives with a mud smearing agenda. In fact, your implication is that the Hawai’ian Officials are less believable than the ‘disbelievers’, because they have provided conclusive evidence and the ‘disbelievers’ have provided nothing but fantasy, tin-foil hat speculation, and fail after fail after fail. That you think that this attempt at false equivalence allows you to claim that both groups are likewise on the same level of ‘belief’ is intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, self serving, and most of all an insult to both the Hawai’ian officials professionalism and everybody else’s intelligence.Good luck with your court case. I predict you will lose, but refuse to respect or acknowledge the decision. Further your continued insane attempt to try to somehow get a court to nullify the 14th Amendment and reinstate the Dred Scott decision will also fail.

  54. avatar
    G June 16, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    Well said. I agree.

    Dr. Conspiracy: The way I look at it, nothing I or anyone else can do will result in the overthrow of the 2008 election. Making a birther lawsuit “better” doesn’t improve its chances of success. The few improvements I have offered to Mr. Collette mostly consist of suggestions that he delete things.I agree with attorney Van R. Irion who said:I also believe that helpful suggestions build bridges and help to reduce demonization. While birthers may “deserve” ridicule, I don’t think it makes anything better.

  55. avatar
    G June 16, 2012 at 10:16 am #

    Agreed.

    Keith: It doesn’t mean any such thing. It means that some people don’t understand the concept of settled law. Some people believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn’t change the fact that the issue of the Earth’s shape has been ‘long settled’ and that the Earth is, in fact, spherical (ish).

  56. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 16, 2012 at 10:16 am #

    Keith: It doesn’t mean any such thing.

    It means that some people don’t understand the concept of settled law.

    Some people believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn’t change the fact that the issue of the Earth’s shape has been ‘long settled’ and that the Earth is, in fact, spherical (ish).

    Keith, you’re right, and I didn’t state that correctly. That one pending case, on its own, would not be sufficient to show that the issues are unsettled. As my opposition to the dismissal shows, however, there is much more.

  57. avatar
    Majority Will June 16, 2012 at 10:36 am #

    Keith: What I believe is that you would improve your life if you stopped attempting to turn the law on its head to fit your agenda and try to broaden your mind with some recreational reading. You could start with Arthur Miller’s The Crucible.

    And then pick up To Kill a Mockingbird.

  58. avatar
    tes June 16, 2012 at 11:55 am #

    Jerry Collette: You missed the point, Doc. I’m not arguing that I’m right. I’m arguing that the issue is open for litigation, not dismissal.
    ————-
    But you have to be RIGHT on the legal issues in order to keep a case open for litigation.

    Jerry Collette: Again, I’m not trying to get the court to rule on the case, just to keep it open. On a motion to dismiss, all reasonable assumptions and inferences are determined to be in the plaintiff’s favor.
    ————-
    You have a fundamentally wrong understanding of the standard on a motion to dismiss.

    On a motion to dismiss, all (sufficiently pled) FACTUAL allegations must be accepted as true (unless contradicted by (a) documents attached to the complaint, (b) documents referred to and relied upon in the complaint, and/or (c) documents/information subject to judicial notice). Additionally, with respect to the (sufficiently pled) FACTS, all REASONABLE inferences in favor of the plaintiff must be drawn.

    However, there is no such requirement to draw LEGAL assumptions and inferences in the plainiff’s favor — indeed, that would be improper. There are no “reasonable assumptions or inferences” to be drawn from the law — it is what it is (or what the judge says it is.)

    So, the contention that a court must accept your inferences and assumptions regarding the law is flat out wrong. Any competent litigation paralegal knows that. (And your brief(s) contain no authority whatsoever refuting that.)

  59. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 16, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

    tes:
    Jerry Collette: You missed the point, Doc. I’m not arguing that I’m right. I’m arguing that the issue is open for litigation, not dismissal.
    ————-
    But you have to be RIGHT on the legal issues in order to keep a case open for litigation.

    No. For example, I may be wrong on the issue of natural born citizenship. However, even though there are no facts on this issue in dispute, the issue would still be open for litigation, on the law, until there’s a motion for summary judgment. That will come soon.

    You have a fundamentally wrong understanding of the standard on a motion to dismiss.

    I understand it completely. I didn’t present fully developed legal arguments here. This is a blog post, not a brief.

  60. avatar
    AlCum June 16, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    Keith: It doesn’t mean any such thing.

    It means that some people don’t understand the concept of settled law.

    Some people believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn’t change the fact that the issue of the Earth’s shape has been ‘long settled’ and that the Earth is, in fact, spherical (ish).

    Under Jerry’s legal theory of “in dispute,” it would simply take his filing a lawsuit stating he believes the earth is flat in order to open it up to dispute.

  61. avatar
    AlCum June 16, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Keith, you’re right, and I didn’t state that correctly. That one pending case, on its own, would not be sufficient to show that the issues are unsettled. As my opposition to the dismissal shows, however, there is much more.

    Your opposition shows no such thing. It merely raises more disproven nonsense. The CCP stuff particularly is, on its face, false.

  62. avatar
    tes June 16, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Has the defense raised any challenges sufficient to dismiss my case without litigating the merits?
    —–
    Yes, the defense has clearly set forth the applicable LAW requiring that your case be dismissed.

    Jerry ColletteHave I sufficiently rebutted those challenges?
    —–
    No. In the current draft, the couple pages contain information that is irrelevant — and that indeed would be improper for a court to consider. (The court’s duty is to interpret the LAW – not worry about some legacy or lack thereof). The next couple pages attack opposing counsel and characterize their statements. Then, the brief goes into a discussion (pp 4-7) of irrelevant information mischaracterized as “evidence” — indeed, it just makes the same sort of allegations already determined by multiple courts to be “bare allegations” based on “suspicions” that are insufficient to state a cause of action.

    Then, in an attempt to convince the court that there is a legal dispute (p 8), you cite a case which would indicate to any Florida state court judge that s/he should not decide it because it’s a federal issue.

    Then a bunch more discussion about defendants (waste of space, really — judge isn’t really interested in how YOU characterize their arguments. Judge wants to know what LAW refutes their arguments. This brief is woefully lacking in any LEGAL analysis distinguishing their cases and authority — although — 13 pages in you finally get to saying that one of the cases they cite is distinguishable. Haven’t checked to see how close to reality your interpretation of that case is.)

    Your FAC alleges two “alternative theories,”
    With respect to the “foreign born” claim – your FAC fails to allege sufficient FACTS (rather than bare suspicions) sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. And your opposition to the motion to dismiss fails to cite any Florida (or other) cases that would support a contention that the claim you allege is sufficiently supported by facts.

    With respect to the “definition of NBC” – your opposition to the motion to dismiss fails to counter sufficiently the defendant’s (correct) statement that every case to look at the issue has determined that under Wong Kim Ark, Obama is a natural born citizen.

    Your opposition fails to cite any authority (Florida or elsewhere) to counter defendants’ statement (supported by SCOTUS precedent) that “the complaint fails to state a cause of action because the Democratic Party has a constitutional right to nominate whomever it desires as its candidate for President of the United States.”

    Your opposition fails to show the judge any way in which Florida law could be read to “authorize interference with this constitutionally protected candidate selection process, and Defendants cannot be enjoined from advancing President Obama’s candidacy.”

    Your opposition fails to cite any law or authority to counter the defendants’ contention that the FAC does not present any “bona fide justiciable controversy between the parties and that the judgment of the court is merely sought to answer questions propounded out of curiosity or for political purposes.”

    Your opposition does cite to the Tennessee LLF case to argue that there is an actual case or controversy. However, in citing that case, you inform the court that the issue is one for FEDERAL courts, not state courts. Not helpful to your case. (To put it mildly.)

    Your opposition fails to cite any law or authority to counter defendants’ contention that “no event could monetary damages be warranted for the type of injury alleged by Plaintiff” and/or that there “exists no cause of action for damages for violation of the alleged rights, duties or obligations claimed by the Plaintiff.”

    Your opposition fails cite any law or authority to counter defendants’ contention that you have failed to join indispensible parties (i.e., Governor of the State of Florida and the Department of State). Your opposition fails to distinguish the authority cited by the defendants in this regard.

    Your opposition states “My Causes of Action Are Actionable Before This Court “ but fails to cite a single law or case supporting your argument that any of the actions may proceed.

    As to declaratory judgment, you fail to show (as is *required* under Florida law), that “there is a bona fide, actual, present practical need for the declaration; that the declaration should deal with a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy as to a state of facts; that some immunity, power, privilege or right of the complaining party is dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts; that there is some person or persons who have, or reasonably may have an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interest in the subject matter, either in fact or law; that the antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the court by proper process or class representation and that the relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice by the courts or the answer to questions propounded from curiosity. These elements are necessary in order to maintain the status of the proceeding as being judicial in nature and therefore within the constitutional powers of the courts.” (quoting from Wells v. Wells, 24 So. 3d 579, 583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009 – but there are many cases – in each circuit – adopting/applying this rule).

    As to your request for an injunction, you fail to acknowledge the requirements, much less show how you meet the requirements.

    Your opposition states that “I Am Entitled to Prove Money Damages” – and that you reserve the right to ask for them. Yet it cites no law supporting such entitlement. Yet again, this demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the motion to dismiss. You HAVE to state the legal support for any such right in order to survive the motion to dismiss.

    Now, about the law you do cite:

    Your opposition states “The U.S. Supreme Court held, in one of the two cases cited by defendants, New York Board of Elections v. Lopez-Torres, 128 S. Ct. 791, 797-798, 552 U.S. 196 (2008): “[A political party’s] rights are circumscribed, however when the State gives the party a role in the election process—as … giving certain parties the right to have their candidates appear with party endorsement on the general-election ballot.” But fails to explain how that excerpted statement has any relevance to your case or to their argument. (I’ve just read the case and have no idea what point you may be trying to make here. Judge won’t either.)

    Your opposition states that you “INTEND” to present “400+ years of law showing that the decision in Wong Kim Ark does not apply to natural born citizenship as it pertains to presidential eligibility.” Per prior post, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how a motion to dismiss works if you think you can promise to later explain the legal argument in order to survive such a motion.

    Your citation to Fla. Const. art. I, 21 (“The courts shall be open to every person [emphasis added] for redress of any injury [emphasis added] …”) is unavailing. The courts *ARE* open to you. You filed your case. That the court is open to you to FILE a case does not mean that you are entitled to PROCEED with the case, when you fail to meet the standard necessary to state a cause of action.

    Your citation to McDaniel Reserve Realty Holdings, LLC v. B.S.E. Consultants, Inc., 39 So.3d 504, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) is similarly unavailing – because McDaniel Reserve Realty Holdings does not say that venue is proper when the injury for which you seek relief was first suffered by the plaintiff in the county at issue. Rather, the case cites to F.S.A. 47.011, which provides that actions shall be brought “only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.” The place of injury is only relevant in a TORT action. You have not brought a tort action. Therefore, the case is inapposite.

    Your citation to Davis v. Pinellas County Police Benevolent Ass’n, Inc., 743 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2nd DCA, 1998) for the proposition that a declaratory judgment need not allege the minimum damages amount in order to vest the court with jurisdiction may or may not be good — I can’t tell for sure – and don’t know the Florida Court system well enough to respond (so won’t pretend that I do). But it is the only citation/legal argument with any potential merit in the entire brief. What I can tell from the Davis case and authority cited therein, is that it appears that there’s a difference between jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions in circuit courts and in county courts. Per Davis, original jurisdiction for such cases lies in the circuit court – not the county court. Per pleading captions, you appear to be in the circuit court.

    Jerry ColletteSo far, hardly anybody has mentioned the MTD’s, or my opposition. Instead, most of the discussion has been on the primary issues of the case, which won’t even be before the court until and unless I survive the MTD’s.
    —–
    The discussion tracks your opposition. Rather than actually addressing the legal issues raised in the opposition, you spend pages making political statements, demonstrating a misunderstanding of the state of your proceedings and your burden in the context of a motion to dismiss. In short, as is typical or a birther brief, your draft is not a legal brief. It’s a political statement devoid of any valid legal argument (except, possibly, the minimum damages argument).

  63. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 16, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    AlCum: Under Jerry’s legal theory of “in dispute,” it would simply take his filing a lawsuit stating he believes the earth is flat in order to open it up to dispute.

    While that may be technically correct, if you read my opposition document, the dispute is more substantial than that.

  64. avatar
    tes June 16, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

    Jerry Collette: No. For example, I may be wrong on the issue of natural born citizenship. However, even though there are no facts on this issue in dispute, the issue would still be open for litigation, on the law, until there’s a motion for summary judgment. That will come soon.

    ————
    Like I said, you misunderstand the burden on a motion to dismiss. Under motion to dismiss, the issue is whether – taking all the (sufficiently alleged) FACTS as true — the law recognizes a cause of action. The issue is not whether there is a potential to make some legal arguments later.

    Jerry ColletteI understand it completely. I didn’t present fully developed legal arguments here. This is a blog post, not a brief.

    Your brief — and the statements you must made — demonstrate the inaccuracy of that statement — at least to anyone who knows anything about litigation.

  65. avatar
    AlCum June 16, 2012 at 1:25 pm #

    Jerry Collette: While that may be technically correct, if you read my opposition document, the dispute is more substantial than that.

    No, it is not. I did read it and there is no substance at all. You’re disputing proven facts. That won’t get you anywhere.

  66. avatar
    tes June 16, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    tes: Haven’t checked to see how close to reality your interpretation of that case is.)

    whoops .. wrote that — then decided to go ahead and check the cases … should’ve deleted that but now too late to edit. sorry.

  67. avatar
    G June 16, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    Bravo Tes! Your entire post breaking down the legal problems in his response was awesome. As was your further explanation here on why his own filing leads the very discussion of it into “political statement territory”…as after all, that is all his unsupported speculation amounts to.

    The courts exist to weigh actual evidence put before them and rule within the boundaries and constraints of existing law. T

    he courts do not exist to entertain wishful thinking and speculative hypothesis without factual and evidential support already behind them.

    tes: The discussion tracks your opposition. Rather than actually addressing the legal issues raised in the opposition, you spend pages making political statements, demonstrating a misunderstanding of the state of your proceedings and your burden in the context of a motion to dismiss. In short, as is typical or a birther brief, your draft is not a legal brief. It’s a political statement devoid of any valid legal argument (except, possibly, the minimum damages argument).

  68. avatar
    linda June 16, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    Well done! Mr. Collette asks for advice or criticism while maintaining he is right, no matter what he is told (with the exception of Rickey telling him not to fuss at the Court). Like other birthers who claim to want the truth, he fails to recognize anything that is counter to his existing beliefs.

    tes: The discussion tracks your opposition. Rather than actually addressing the legal issues raised in the opposition, you spend pages making political statements, demonstrating a misunderstanding of the state of your proceedings and your burden in the context of a motion to dismiss. In short, as is typical or a birther brief, your draft is not a legal brief. It’s a political statement devoid of any valid legal argument (except, possibly, the minimum damages argument).

  69. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 16, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    tes:
    Then, in an attempt to convince the court that there is a legal dispute (p 8), you cite a case which would indicate to any Florida state court judge that s/he should not decide it because it’s a federal issue.

    Your opposition does cite to the Tennessee LLF case to argue that there is an actual case or controversy.However, in citing that case, you inform the court that the issue is one for FEDERAL courts, not state courts.Not helpful to your case.(To put it mildly.)

    Tes, I really appreciate your analysis. I have regrouped some of your statements, for clarity.

    The defendants had the option to move this to federal court. That option has now expired. The case is now in Fla. courts until it is resolved.

    Then a bunch more discussion about defendants (waste of space, really — judge isn’t really interested in how YOU characterize their arguments.

    Well, the defendants started it by mischaracterizing mine. I won’t just let that lie.

    Judge wants to know what LAW refutes their arguments.This brief is woefully lacking in any LEGAL analysis distinguishing their cases and authority …

    The judge knows the black letter law on motions to dismiss, and I was able to refute most of defendants arguments with simple logic.

    Your FAC alleges two “alternative theories,”
    With respect to the “foreign born” claim – your FAC fails to allege sufficient FACTS (rather than bare suspicions) sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.And your opposition to the motion to dismiss fails to cite any Florida (or other) cases that would supporta contention that the claim you allege is sufficiently supported by facts.

    Defendants have not moved to dismiss on this grounds.

    Your opposition fails to cite any authority (Florida or elsewhere) to counter defendants’ statement (supported by SCOTUS precedent) that “the complaint fails to state a cause of action because the Democratic Party has a constitutional right to nominate whomever it desires as its candidate for President of the United States.”

    I have stipulated that they can nominate whomever they want, including Humpty Dumpty. That’s not what my case is about.

    Your opposition fails to show the judge any way in which Florida law could be read to “authorize interference with this constitutionally protected candidate selection process, and Defendants cannot be enjoined from advancing President Obama’s candidacy.”

    Lopez-Torres says just that, with respect to the ballot process. And, I’m not trying to stop them from advancing the candidacy, just putting him on the taxpayer funded ballot.

    Your opposition fails to cite any law or authority to counter the defendants’ contention that the FAC does not present any “bona fide justiciable controversy between the parties and that the judgment of the court is merely sought to answer questions propounded out of curiosity or for political purposes.”

    Whether or not there is a justiciable controversy is not a legal issue here; it’s a factual and analytical issue.

    [Your opposition fails to cite any law or authority to counter defendants’ contention] that there “exists no cause of action for damages for violation of the alleged rights, duties or obligations claimed by the Plaintiff.”

    You’re right. You might also notice that I also made the same allegation in my complaint. I also showed how that was irrelevant.

    Your opposition fails cite any law or authority to counter defendants’ contention that you have failed to join indispensible parties (i.e., Governor of the State of Florida and the Department of State).Your opposition fails to distinguish the authority cited by the defendants in this regard.

    You’re right. I refuted their argument with simple logic.

    Your opposition states “My Causes of Action Are Actionable Before This Court “ but fails to cite a single law or case supporting your argument that any of the actions may proceed.

    I cited the Florida Constitution.

    As to declaratory judgment, you fail to show (as is *required* under Florida law), that “there is a bona fide, actual, present practical need for the declaration; that the declaration should deal with a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy as to a state of facts; that some immunity, power, privilege or right of the complaining party is dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts; that there is some person or persons who have, or reasonably may have an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interest in the subject matter, either in fact or law; that the antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the court by proper process or class representation and that the relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice by the courts or the answer to questions propounded from curiosity. These elements are necessary in order to maintain the status of the proceeding as being judicial in nature and therefore within the constitutional powers of the courts.”(quoting from Wells v. Wells, 24 So. 3d 579, 583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009 – but there are many cases – in each circuit – adopting/applying this rule).

    As to your request for an injunction, you fail to acknowledge the requirements, much less show how you meet the requirements.

    This is something the court will analyze. I think I have shown it.

    Your opposition fails to cite any law or authority to counter defendants’ contention that “no event could monetary damages be warranted for the type of injury alleged by Plaintiff” …

    Your opposition states that “I Am Entitled to Prove Money Damages” – and that you reserve the right to ask for them.Yet it cites no law supporting such entitlement. Yet again, this demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of the motion to dismiss.You HAVE to state the legal support for any such right in order to survive the motion to dismiss.

    The defense has to show the law supporting their assertion, and they have not. Monetary damages are routinely awarded in negligence cases. In the grand scheme of things, this is a minor issue for me.

    Your opposition states “The U.S. Supreme Court held, in one of the two cases cited by defendants, New York Board of Elections v. Lopez-Torres, 128 S. Ct. 791, 797-798, 552 U.S. 196 (2008): “[A political party’s] rights are circumscribed, however when the State gives the party a role in the election process—as … giving certain parties the right to have their candidates appear with party endorsement on the general-election ballot.”But fails to explain how that excerpted statement has any relevance to your case or to their argument.(I’ve just read the case and have no idea what point you may be trying to make here.Judge won’t either.)

    It seemed pretty obvious to me, but I’ll connect the dots some more to make it clearer. Thanks.

    With respect to the “definition of NBC” – your opposition to the motion to dismiss fails to counter sufficiently the defendant’s (correct) statement that every case to look at the issue has determined that under Wong Kim Ark, Obama is a natural born citizen.

    Your opposition states that you “INTEND” to present “400+ years of law showing that the decision in Wong Kim Ark does not apply to natural born citizenship as it pertains to presidential eligibility.” Per prior post, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how a motion to dismiss works if you think you can promise to later explain the legal argument in order to survive such a motion.

    This is a motion to dismiss, not a motion for summary judgment. In response to one, or if I make one, then I’ll support my position with the relevant law. All I have to do now is show that there is more to litigate.

    The standard defendants have to show on their motion is that it is beyond doubt that the I can prove no set of facts in support of my claim which would entitle me to relief. That’s a pretty high standard. All I have to do is show doubt.

    Your citation to McDaniel Reserve Realty Holdings, LLC v. B.S.E. Consultants, Inc., 39 So.3d 504, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) is similarly unavailing – because McDaniel Reserve Realty Holdings does not say that venue is proper when the injury for which you seek relief was first suffered by the plaintiff in the county at issue. Rather, the case cites to F.S.A. 47.011, which provides that actions shall be brought “only in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.”The place of injury is only relevant in a TORT action.You have not brought a tort action.Therefore, the case is inapposite.

    I have brought this action as a tort; both my first and second causes of action, the only ones brought, are torts.

  70. avatar
    linda June 16, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    As Tes and others have pointed out, you misunderstand the requirements. You do not need to tell you Court why you believe as you do, but what basis it has under the law. That some people believe otherwise does not mean the issue isn’t settled.

    Jerry Collette: I quoted it verbatim and understand it completely and its context. In my case, the defendants are claiming that these issues are long settled. My point was simply that, since these issue are being litigated elsewhere means they are not completely settled.

    Jerry Collette: My statement related to them was that, even if the court ultimately rules against me, I still have a basis for my claims.

  71. avatar
    JPotter June 16, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    Jerry Collette: I’m simply staying on topic. In my case, the upcoming pending issues will be the MTD’s.

    This is a thin veil, a plea for keep a long-braindead patient on life support, after all tests demonstrate that, not only is the patient’s brain dead in a functional sense, the cerebral tissue itself is literally dead and has in fact decayed.
    You can say, “It won’t hurt to keep this window cracked for a little while” all you want, but I happen to know that all decay begins with a leak. The smallest compromise is a threat to any sealed structure or organized system.Even worse, if I have reason to suspect The Blob is outside, I’m slamming the window shut, thanks.

    Has the defense raised any challenges sufficient to dismiss my case without litigating the merits?

    Yes.

    Have I sufficiently rebutted those challenges?

    No.

    Mr. Collette, you have a right to petition, no matter how frivolous or redundant your petition is. I am happy to see you exercise it, but you’ve no right to be heard if unable to present a case that needs to be heard. This case will be dismissed.

  72. avatar
    linda June 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    Mr Collette, your response displays a nearly complete misunderstanding of the process. There is an expression where I am from, it is not eloquent, but it is applicable. “You can put your boots in the oven, but that don’t make ’em biscuits.” Saying it is so, does not make it so.

    Jerry Collette: Well, the defendants started it by mischaracterizing mine. I won’t just let that lie.

    Jerry Collette: The judge knows the black letter law on motions to dismiss, and I was able to refute most of defendants arguments with simple logic.

    Jerry Collette: You’re right. I refuted their argument with simple logic.

    Jerry Collette: This is something the court will analyze. I think I have shown it.

    Jerry Collette: This is a motion to dismiss, not a motion for summary judgment. In response to one, or if I make one, then I’ll support my position with the relevant law. All I have to do now is show that there is more to litigate.

    The standard defendants have to show on their motion is that it is beyond doubt that the I can prove no set of facts in support of my claim which would entitle me to relief. That’s a pretty high standard. All I have to do is show doubt.

  73. avatar
    G June 16, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    I’m sorry, but what you said just isn’t making any sense to me. I’m hoping you can explain exactly HOW such a thing would be possible…

    I mean, how does any concerned party “advance a candidacy” for office UNLESS they are specifically intending to have that candidate on the “taxpayer funded ballot”.

    I simply fail to grasp where there is ANY purpose to an actual candidacy (i.e. one that is more than just a whimsical farce) in which being on the ballot isn’t a critical and necessary component.

    Therefore, as I see it, YES, you absolutely are trying to stop them from advancing the candidacy and it seems utterly disingenuous and unrealistic to pretend and claim otherwise.

    Jerry Collette: Lopez-Torres says just that, with respect to the ballot process. And, I’m not trying to stop them from advancing the candidacy, just putting him on the taxpayer funded ballot.

  74. avatar
    linda June 16, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    Exactly!

    G: Therefore, as I see it, YES, you absolutely are trying to stop them from advancing the candidacy and it seems utterly disingenuous and unrealistic to pretend and claim otherwise.

  75. avatar
    G June 16, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    Of course it is. Again, you seem to be failing to grasp the difference between merely FILING a case with the courts (which you have successfully done) and being able to pursue it to any possible conclusion other than merely being dismissed in this upfront stage of the process for lack of merit. (And yes, issues of jurisdiction, standing, particularized and concrete injury, etc. ARE key qualifying basic MERITS that a case must demonstrate in order to move forward.)

    The courts are NOT a place to waste time with whimsical philosophical speculation and political aggrandizement.

    Therefore, if you don’t have *any* actual justicable controvery, you DON’T have an actual case to be heard at all. Without clear evidence that either an existing law has been violated or that a SPECIFIC situation within the bounds of existing law hasn’t been addressed, you have ZERO actual case to move forward with and are just wasting the court’s time on something that is doomed to be quickly dismissed.

    In other words, the very definition of a FRIVOLOUS claim. So yeah, it absolutely is a legal issue here in your case…as you simply don’t have a case without such.

    Jerry Collette: Whether or not there is a justiciable controversy is not a legal issue here; it’s a factual and analytical issue.

  76. avatar
    gorefan June 16, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    Does anyone know why this case wasn’t consolidated with the Voeltz case?

    Just curious.

  77. avatar
    G June 16, 2012 at 3:36 pm #

    Agreed.

    Then again, Mr. Collete came here asking for advice and we’ve offered it.

    He is within his right to not agree with our advice and conclusions and to continue with pursuing his personal theories of what his response should address and whether or not he feels he’s adequately done so.

    HOWEVER, with all that being said…at some point he files and the court weighs in and issues their response. At that point, the courts will have given Mr. Collete an OFFICIAL answer.

    Obviously, we are all predicting that the courts will be telling him exactly what we are all trying to convey. If the courts come back and pretty much tell him what we’ve been trying to tell him all along, then he needs to actually LISTEN and finally LEARN at that point.

    It is understandable for him to hold out to hear an OFFICIAL response from the courts. HOWEVER, once they have done so…ESPECIALLY if it is essentially what he’s been repeatedly told here…then he needs to demonstrate that he is capable of grasping and learning how the law actually works. He doesn’t have to LIKE the answers, just grasp and accept that they ARE the answers.

    If he is capable of doing that, then he will have demonstrated he is capable of actual reason and learning from this experience.

    If not, then he is merely blowing smoke up everyone’s @ss and doing nothing more than bullheadedly remaining detatched from reality and wasting time and money. The world and the law simply do NOT entitle everyone to have their own private little pony to make them personally feel good.

    Much of reality and our laws can be harsh and happen to work in ways or produce results that we don’t like. That doesn’t make them any less real. Those who can’t learn and grasp such things after direct experience have only themselves to blame for continuing childish fatasy tantrums past that point.

    Case in point: David Farrar in the GA birther cases. He started off claiming he merely wanted to have his reasoning heard in the courts too. Well, they heard him AND responded. However, he is simply being a baby and sticking his fingers in his ears because he didn’t like what the courts told him, so he persists in disingenuously mischaracterizing what actually happened and pretending that they never gave him a response. So Mr. Farrar has proven himself at this point to be nothing more than a obstinate windbag fool and willful liar.

    I can only hold out some hope that Mr. Collete has a slight bit more integrity and sincerity than Mr. Farrar. We will all know once he’s had his ruling, based on how both the courts and then he responds.

    linda: Mr Collette, your response displays a nearly complete misunderstanding of the process. There is an expression where I am from, it is not eloquent, but it is applicable. “You can put your boots in the oven, but that don’t make ‘em biscuits.” Saying it is so, does not make it so.

  78. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 16, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

    gorefan:
    Does anyone know why this case wasn’t consolidated with the Voeltz case?

    Just curious.

    Nobody has made such a motion. I expect that defendants will do so.

  79. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen June 16, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    Collette’s reply to Tes demonstrates why it is impossible to educate birthers. They wear their ignorance proudly and don’t have any idea how to argue legal issues. It’s a waste of electrons in my view.

    Collette is a Cargo Cult litigant. If he just says the right words the judge will apply the law (that Collette fails to argue) and give him a victory.

    If only it were that simple.

  80. avatar
    Stanislaw June 16, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

    G:
    Without clear evidence that either an existing law has been violated or that a SPECIFIC situation within the bounds of existing law hasn’t been addressed, you have ZERO actual case to move forward with and are just wasting the court’s time on something that is doomed to be quickly dismissed.

    In other words, the very definition of a FRIVOLOUS claim.So yeah, it absolutely is a legal issue here in your case…as you simply don’t have a case without such.

    Birthers lawyers would do well to print this out and tape it to the doors of their refrigerators.

  81. avatar
    JPotter June 16, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

    G: Then again, Mr. Collete came here asking for advice and we’ve offered it.

    Well put. I’d sign my name to it proudly!

    When a person demonstrates an insistence that the reality between their ears is more important than the one outside, and insists that the world outside pay attention to their inner world for reasons only demonstrable in that inner world, it’s time for the outside world to pass them by.

    No one living in the outside world can live in the space between your ears, no matter how desirable your headspace might be. We just have to make do as best we can out here in the lot we are given. 😉

  82. avatar
    linda June 16, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    That, or tattoo it on their foreheads.

    Stanislaw: Birthers lawyers would do well to print this out and tape it to the doors of their refrigerators.

  83. avatar
    donna June 16, 2012 at 4:51 pm #

    “Collette’s reply to Tes demonstrates why it is impossible to educate birthers. ”

    and WHY NO big name republican attorneys like ted olson, joe digenova, victoria toensing, etc have come anywhere near the stench of birther lawsuits …… the “would be” biggest case of fraud in the history of the world

  84. avatar
    HistorianDude June 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Me too, which is why I want the original docs disclosed.

    Then you must do what no Birther to this point has proven willing or able to do; justify,; that disclosure.

    There is a reason that "certified copies" of birth records were conceived and formalized in the first place. And that was to provide a predefined and preagreed legal standard for proving the details of an individual’s birth. Understand that the law is fully aware that no such thing as “absolute” proof exists for anything, and yet the requirement remains for judges and juries to make determinations of fact and law. So the standards are spelled out. They are published. They are communicated so that all parties understand them.

    The standard tells us when to stop. It tells us when we have enough to make a decision that we can have confidence regarding. They tell us in general (and judges in particular) when it is safe to conclude that they know what is true. These standards do not require your personal consensus. They are already the consensus under the law and you fail to conform to them at your peril.

    A certified copy of a birth certificate issued by the appropriate legal authority as determined by each state is the legal standard of proof for the details it contains in this country, and in every court within this country. It is prima facie, and under the Federal Rules of Evidence completely self authenticating. We have set this standard specifically so that everyone has a common understanding of what “proof” means in this instance. And so we can bring our birth certificate to the DMV to get a drivers license, or the Post Office to get a passport, or our employer to get an I9 without requiring anything else; no forensic examination, to phone calls to the issuing authority… nothing else.

    Now, as prima facie evidence it is actually still rebuttable, to be sure. But a rebuttal is not some “bald suspicion” or worse, wild accusation of forgery. A rebuttal requires the ability to present evidence of equal or greater legal weight that contradicts the birth certificates. What would such evidence be? Well… another contradictory certified birth certificate also issued by a recognized legal authority would be one possible example. Alas… Birthers have nothing like that in their otherwise immense quiver of innuendo, fiction and speculation.

    Do you want to see the original? Then you must earn the right by rebutting the certified copies released by Obama in 2008 and 2011. You must provide evidence that is as strong as or stronger than the State of Hawaii’s repeated authentication that President Obama actually was not born as the Hawaiian records reveal.

    BIrthism is now officially more than 4 years old. It has consumed countless hours of Birther concern, research, investigation, parsing, perusing, probing, questing, exploration, analysis and scrutinizing.

    And yet the absence of a single scrap of evidence in rebuttal of the President’s birth certificate remains as a huge hole in any Birther hope of getting “more” that what the State of Hawaii has already offered.

  85. avatar
    jtmunkus June 16, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    linda: Yes and no, respectively.The defense has law and court decisions in support of their assertions. You reference the CCP “investigation” and statements in a publisher’s pamphlet as reasons to question Obama’s eligibility, but no law that supports taking him off the ballot. I would be shocked if the case doesn’t get dismissed.

    And then Mr. Collette will say “See?! The corrupt courts are all in cahoots, because they all dismiss the cases before they get to the merits. Waaaaahhhhh!!!”

    He will not admit that his case, and his opposition to the MtD are completely absurd and without merit and have absolutely no basis in law.

    Merely saying [over and over again] “I am informed and I believe that…” doesn’t mean diddly – except every time the reader encounters the phrase, she’s left to conclude that it’s just another instance of Collette saying there’s a fact, and then neglecting to write it.. It’s amazing to me that Mr. Collette is so delusional that he thinks he actually responded to the MtD, when indeed all he did is pen a manifesto on his political biases. Telling the judge he’s “informed.”

    That’ll work instead of law.

    Purposeful ignorance and the casting aside of Constitutional freedoms just to ‘get even’ with a president they don’t like [usually because he’s black] have become the hallmarks of these birther fools – Collette being a prime fool example.

    The only way he could have done a more ineffective job would have been to hire Orly Taitz to represent him.

  86. avatar
    Majority Will June 16, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

    “Then a bunch more discussion about defendants (waste of space, really — judge isn’t really interested in how YOU characterize their arguments.”

    “Well, the defendants started it by mischaracterizing mine. I won’t just let that lie.”

    – facepalm –

  87. avatar
    y_p_w June 16, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

    HistorianDude: Now, as prima facie evidence it is actually still rebuttable, to be sure. But a rebuttal is not some “bald suspicion” or worse, wild accusation of forgery. A rebuttal requires the ability to present evidence of equal or greater legal weight that contradicts the birth certificates. What would such evidence be? Well… another contradictory certified birth certificate also issued by a recognized legal authority would be one possible example. Alas… Birthers have nothing like that in their otherwise immense quiver of innuendo, fiction and speculation.

    Certainly it would be admissible via the Federal Rules of Evidence or via various states
    rules of evidence. Each government agency has rules for how they will accept vital records. The US State Dept has dealt with the thousands of different birth certificate forms out there and do have lists of different suspect forms out there that they will either not accept or require additional proof. Most states have standards for how they deal with the records of other states or records issued in the same state.

    I know a lot of people mention the Full Faith and Credit Clause, although I’ve mentioned that I thought it was a red herring because it comes with an additional requirement (via law passed by Congress in the second part of the clause) for how records are “proved”. The signatures and or seals are required to be verified by specific state officials or a judge. The vast majority of vital records issued in the US don’t go through this kind of additional authentication, but are accepted regularly.

  88. avatar
    Majority Will June 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

    jtmunkus: Purposeful ignorance and the casting aside of Constitutional freedoms just to ‘get even’ with a president they don’t like [usually because he’s black] have become the hallmarks of these birther fools – Collette being a prime fool example.

    Well said.

  89. avatar
    gorefan June 16, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Jerry Collette: I expect that defendants will do so.

    They better hurry, the Voeltz’s case is not likely to be around much longer.

  90. avatar
    bgansel9 June 16, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

    Jerry Collette: I have already stated that people who believe he was born in Hawaii and people who believe he was born in Kenya are both operating on faith.

    I’m not operating on faith. I’m operating on the word of the president, backed up by a document which serves as prima facie evidence in a court of law, and which has been verified numerous times by the State of Hawaii, and has now been entered into record as evidence of birth in the state of Mississippi. Are you saying the State of Hawaii is involved in some kind of conspiracy to keep you from the truth? Really?

    Okay, I can do nothing but point and laugh now. Operating on faith? I don’t think so. Faith is believing in things not seen. I have seen the verifications and the graphics of the certificate of live birth and I don’t need no stinking faith.

  91. avatar
    bgansel9 June 16, 2012 at 9:00 pm #

    G: I mean, how does any concerned party “advance a candidacy” for office UNLESS they are specifically intending to have that candidate on the “taxpayer funded ballot”.

    I simply fail to grasp where there is ANY purpose to an actual candidacy (i.e. one that is more than just a whimsical farce) in which being on the ballot isn’t a critical and necessary component.

    Jerry doesn’t mind that I want to vote for Obama again, so long as I’m not given the actual opportunity to do so.

  92. avatar
    clestes June 16, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

    Birthers have been on a losing streak since the beginning of the movement. The courts are past tired of your antics and pretty soon won’t even allow a birther to file. After 130 losses they have neither the time nor the resources to deal with these silly and stupid cases.

    Birthers do not have a legal leg to stand on. None of them demonstrate the slightest understanding of US law or what precedent means. They make up their own version of US law, ignore history, ignore their losing streak.

    They seem to think that it is just a matter of finding the right judge. What they cannot seem to grasp are the FACTS. And these facts have been stated in every single dismissal. No standing, the 1898 Wong case, the misunderstanding of the Minor v. Happersett case,

    Future generations are going to just scratch their heads in wonder at the incredible stupidity of these people.

  93. avatar
    nbc June 16, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    Jerry Collette: You must have me confused with somebody else. I have already stated that people who believe he was born in Hawaii and people who believe he was born in Kenya are both operating on faith. I want to see more evidence.

    There is faith and there is faith. Those who accept the evidence that President Obama was born in Hawaii does so based on solid evidence, while those who argue, in spite of the evidence, do so mostly based on ignorance. To call the two position, ‘faith based’ hides that the two are fundamentally at a different level.

    Furthermore it is those who make charges in a court who will have to prove their point. If, as you admit, the Kenya birth is faith based, then you have rejected foreign birth as a disqualification already.

    So now the matter is simple and straightforward and the courts so far have rejected any foolish two citizen parent interpretations in light of US v WKA.

    The motion to dismiss is likely to be granted as your ‘response’ has done little in opposition.

  94. avatar
    nbc June 16, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Has the defense raised any challenges sufficient to dismiss my case without litigating the merits? Have I sufficiently rebutted those challenges?

    The answers are a simple yes and no

  95. avatar
    nbc June 16, 2012 at 9:29 pm #

    Jerry Collette: The judge knows the black letter law on motions to dismiss, and I was able to refute most of defendants arguments with simple logic.

    Where did that happen? And simple logic is not how one approaches issues of law either. I find your position very poorly argued so far, and hiding it under ‘simple logic’ does not help to hide their lack in such. Your draft motion has little or no legal relevance.

  96. avatar
    Stanislaw June 16, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

    bgansel9:

    Okay, I can do nothing but point and laugh now.

    You can laugh all you want, but what if the Earth really is flat?

  97. avatar
    Keith June 16, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

    Jerry Collette: The standard defendants have to show on their motion is that it is beyond doubt that the I can prove no set of facts in support of my claim which would entitle me to relief. That’s a pretty high standard. All I have to do is show doubt.

    That is ridiculous on the face of it and demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that you don’t have a clue about the very fundamentals of how your country operates.

    The DEFENSE doesn’t have to show and G.D. thing. The defendants are ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

    It is totally, 100% up to YOU to show that YOU have a LEGITIMATE grievance than CAN be dealt with by the Court.

    In their motion to dismiss the defense has pointed out why they think you don’t have a LEGITIMATE claim under the LAW. YOU have done NOTHING to counter those claims except to tell the Court that you WANT to present an argument.

    WANTING to present an argument is not the same thing as being ENTITLED to waste the Court’s time presenting an argument that the Court has no authority to act on in any way.

    The Courts are no place for political theater.

  98. avatar
    bgansel9 June 16, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    Stanislaw: You can laugh all you want, but what if the Earth really is flat?

    Science fiction fantasy is fun, huh?

  99. avatar
    Rickey June 16, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    gorefan: They better hurry, the Voeltz’s case is not likely to be around much longer.

    Sam Sewell and Jerry Collette are joined at the hip. They are officers of an entity called constitutionalelections.org, Inc. Sam is the President, Bunny Sewell in the vice-President, and Jerry is the Secretary.

    http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Naples/constitutionalelections-org-inc/101209909.aspx

  100. avatar
    bgansel9 June 16, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Keith: It is totally, 100% up to YOU to show that YOU have a LEGITIMATE grievance than CAN be dealt with by the Court.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t people who pass the bar KNOW this already? IANAL, but, it would seem to be that this would be part of beginner lawyering. No?

  101. avatar
    Stanislaw June 16, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

    Rickey: Sam Sewell and Jerry Collette are joined at the hip. They are officers of an entity called constitutionalelections.org, Inc. Sam is the President, Bunny Sewell in the vice-President, and Jerry is the Secretary.

    http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Naples/constitutionalelections-org-inc/101209909.aspx

    I always wondered what happened to the Three Stooges.

  102. avatar
    Majority Will June 16, 2012 at 10:40 pm #

    Rickey: Sam Sewell and Jerry Collette are joined at the hip. They are officers of an entity called constitutionalelections.org, Inc. Sam is the President, Bunny Sewell in the vice-President, and Jerry is the Secretary.

    http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Naples/constitutionalelections-org-inc/101209909.aspx

    Poster children for the Bigot Brigade with far more spare time than common sense.

  103. avatar
    Majority Will June 16, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

    Stanislaw: You can laugh all you want, but what if the Earth really is flat?

    Then my level is accurate.

  104. avatar
    nbc June 16, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

    Jerry Collette: The standard defendants have to show on their motion is that it is beyond doubt that the I can prove no set of facts in support of my claim which would entitle me to relief. That’s a pretty high standard. All I have to do is show doubt.

    You clearly do not understand the standard in a MTD. And no it’s not about what you can prove at a later date.

    Sigh… Amateurs… So much fun

  105. avatar
    bgansel9 June 16, 2012 at 11:03 pm #

    Wow! Roni Deutch wrote a testimony about Jerry: “The smartest paralegal that I have ever had the privilege of working with over the past twenty years is, hands down, Jerry Collette. I highly recommend that anyone in need of a legal genius immediately hire Jerry Collette.”

    —Roni Deutch, Retired California Attorney, Author, Television Personality, and Film Maker. Full Testimonial. – http://giftedlegalmind.com/testimonials/

    Roni Deutch runs commercials here in Arpaio-land, I will surely remember this if I’m ever in need of legal help and not contact her.

    Okay, so according to what I’m reading, Jerry’s a paralegal and not an attorney, but I’m still mystified, I’ve always heard law was such a sophisticated profession. I’m not seeing it when Birthers don’t understand their profession.

  106. avatar
    JPotter June 16, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    Majority Will: Then my level is accurate.

    Not so fast, “flat” does not necessarily mean level; the Earth could be flat, but at any angle. But, since objects (at least in this frame of reference) fall straight down, I can say it’s level here, at least in respect to the center of gravity. (How do the Flat Earthers deal with gravity?).

    If not on Flat Earth, level becomes relative.

    Finally, your level might be out of calibration, but you would have checked that before posting, right?

    This post may seem off-topic, but I contend it ties back to my headspace comment above, getting at the psychological flaw in Mr. Collete’s work.

  107. avatar
    bgansel9 June 16, 2012 at 11:20 pm #

    So, from what I’m reading, GiftedLegalMind.com is Jerry’s site, and on the front page it says:

    “Some paralegals are more like glorified legal secretaries, while others are more like gifted attorneys without a bar card.”

    So, while Jerry is NOT an attorney, he seems to pass himself off as one, although, “without a bar card”. Bwahahahaha!

  108. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 16, 2012 at 11:26 pm #

    bgansel9: Roni Deutch, Retired California Attorney, Author, Television Personality, and Film Maker

    “Retired”? Hardly. She shutdown her company a year ago and turned in her law license after the complaints against her piled up and the state filed a $34-million lawsuit against her for swindling thousands of people

  109. avatar
    bgansel9 June 16, 2012 at 11:37 pm #

    CarlOrcas: “Retired”? Hardly. She shutdown her company a year ago and turned in her law license after the complaints against her piled up and the state filed a $34-million lawsuit against her for swindling thousands of people

    Yeah, Carl, I just read about how she swindled money out of her clients on her wiki. Yes, she’s apparently a crook. I guess the “Great Legal Mind” found a way to keep her out of jail. I had no idea she had to close down. I wonder exactly how much work Mr. Collette did for her?

  110. avatar
    bgansel9 June 16, 2012 at 11:56 pm #

    OMG! Jerry has a Obama Ballot Challenge page:

    “Anybody with half of a legal mind can recognize that the issue of Obama’s eligibility to hold office is still unresolved. Whether or not somebody believes Obama meets the constitutional qualifiations is, at this point, simply a matter of faith, not of fact or settled law.” – Yeah, obviously it’s the same guy. LOL That “Faith” argument again. So brilliant, except that the opposite of FAITH is EVIDENCE.

    But, wait… it’s get even better: “No Adjudication in a Judicial Court

    As of this writing, March 15, 2012, there has been no adjudication of either primary issue in a judicial court. Every judicial case on the subject had been dismissed on procedural grounds, rather than being resolved on the merits.” – http://giftedlegalmind.com/obama-ballot-challenge/

    Sorry, Jerry, but you’re wrong! These cases WERE resolved on the merits. All of the judges have found that none of the cases had any merits.

    ETA: Found this too – “Limits to Jerry’s Ability to Contribute

    There are limits to how much Jerry can contribute to this project. If people were to fund his work, he could do more.”

    He is just another grifter, of course.

  111. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 17, 2012 at 12:02 am #

    bgansel9: But, wait… it’s get even better: “

    Does he have any good deals on Ginsu knives????

  112. avatar
    CarlOrcas June 17, 2012 at 12:04 am #

    bgansel9: I wonder exactly how much work Mr. Collette did for her?

    More interesting would be to find out if he got paid for any of his work.

    As far as her situation it appears that all the claims and charges against her are civil so no jail time for her……yet.

  113. avatar
    Keith June 17, 2012 at 12:40 am #

    JPotter: But, since objects (at least in this frame of reference) fall straight down, I can say it’s level here, at least in respect to the center of gravity. (How do the Flat Earthers deal with gravity?).

    Gravity is one thing. But how do Flat Earthers deay with “center of gravity”?

  114. avatar
    JPotter June 17, 2012 at 12:52 am #

    Keith: Gravity is one thing. But how do Flat Earthers deay with “center of gravity”?

    And thus my question, right? I mean, if it was centrifugal, we’d all be living on our walls. Multiple centers of gravity are a nonstarter. A flat earth being constantly accelerated from below? A flat earth flying around the sun sideways? Hard to explain night and day. Perhaps it only ‘works’ (term loosely used) in a geocentric universe.

    So I googled “Flat Earth gravity”. And, boy, was it a good time! I highly recommend it. Leads to conflations of magnetism with gravity, but mostly, general denial of gravity.

    And then there’s this gem:

    http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/FlatEarth/

    and ….

    In Search of the Edge

    This is just an exercise in the absurd ….. right?

  115. avatar
    linda June 17, 2012 at 1:17 am #

    He at least got part of it right, he just missed which category he fell into. : )

    bgansel9: “Some paralegals are more like glorified legal secretaries, while others are more like gifted attorneys without a bar card.”

  116. avatar
    Keith June 17, 2012 at 2:09 am #

    y_p_w: The signatures and or seals are required to be verified by specific state officials or a judge.

    Incorrect. We’ve had this discussion already.

    You ability to read this law is just about equal to the abilities the birthers show in attempting to read any law or court ruling. And that is not a compliment (obviously).

    As HistorianDude said:

    HistorianDude: Now, as prima facie evidence it is actually still rebuttable, to be sure. But a rebuttal is not some “bald suspicion” or worse, wild accusation of forgery. A rebuttal requires the ability to present evidence of equal or greater legal weight that contradicts the birth certificates. What would such evidence be? Well… another contradictory certified birth certificate also issued by a recognized legal authority would be one possible example. Alas… Birthers have nothing like that in their otherwise immense quiver of innuendo, fiction and speculation.

    And THAT is when the endorsement of the Governor or what-ever becomes necessary – when there is equal or greater legal weight that contradicts the birth certificate – and the bonafides of the issuing official (clerk in your favorite quoted passage which I can’t put my finger on at the moment, sorry) and the process used need to be checked.

    Otherwise the birth certificate is a self-authenticating document which is subject to FF&C. Of course any such certified document can be challenged, but only if there is valid evidence to that places its provenance in doubt.

  117. avatar
    realist June 17, 2012 at 9:32 am #

    Gotta love birthers… Mr. self-proclaimed super-duper paralegal who is really an lawyer but just doesn’t have that bar card receives from Tes (and others, but just sayin’) what would amount to thousands of dollars of free legal advice, doing what Doc asks, critiquing Jerry’s draft response.

    Rather than taking it to heart that she is a seasoned and successful litigator, and learning, he basically sez no, you’re wrong Ms. Litigator and I’m right cuz, you know, I’m a super-duper paralegal who is as good or better at this than any silly experienced litigator.

    I can’t wait to hear how corrupt the court is when he doesn’t survive the MtD. Cuz, you know, birthers would win if that weren’t the case.

  118. avatar
    Majority Will June 17, 2012 at 9:45 am #

    realist: I can’t wait to hear how corrupt the court is when he doesn’t survive the MtD. Cuz, you know, birthers would win if that weren’t the case.

    Or the clueless will accuse the court of being incompetent.

  119. avatar
    donna June 17, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    “I can’t wait to hear how corrupt the court is when he doesn’t survive the MtD. Cuz, you know, birthers would win if that weren’t the case.”

    if they could just get that “forged” birth certificate on the record

    if their “expert witnesses” were just allowed to testify

    if their “evidence” was just allowed to be submitted

    if their cases could just be considered on the merits

    if the judges were just not paid off, marxist and corrupt

    if arpaio, zullo and corsi would just agree to testify in court

    if someone would just read “minor” ( the other day, a birther ask me if i had ever heard of “Minor v. Happersett’)

    if we could just have a “trial” (i guess like OJ)

  120. avatar
    JPotter June 17, 2012 at 11:49 am #

    donna: if we could just have a “trial” (i guess like OJ)

    …. “and if we were just allowed to win, just once! It just isn’t fair for one side to win all the time!”

    Kindergarten litigators.

  121. avatar
    kimba June 17, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

    In my opinion talk of “building bridges” and “undemonification” simply emboldens these fools. They are wrong about President Obama and the law. They need to be told that truth over and over and over again, not encouraged by critiquing their ridiculous drafts of court filings. You’re empowering them. I think it’s wrong.

  122. avatar
    brygenon June 17, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

    From Dr. C’s article: “I’m sure Jerry would appreciate constructive criticism of his draft motion”.

    At this point saying anything constructive to Jerry is a bit of a challenge. Nevertheless…

    Jerry, you need your own legal counsel. You rightly understands that Dr C’s audience is not on your side. On the other hand, the lawyers who are already on your side have lost every single time. Jerry, you need an attorney who works for you, not for either side of the cause. As long as you don’t specifically seek out a birther, you’ll get good advice.

    Oft I’ve wondered how many burgeoning birthers sought, got, and took competent legal advice. Alas, we’ll never know. We don’t hear about those.

  123. avatar
    donna June 17, 2012 at 12:37 pm #

    …. “and if we were just allowed to win, just once! It just isn’t fair for one side to win all the time!”

    Kindergarten litigators.

    so TRUE!!!!!!

    what’s NOT FAIR and INCOMPREHENSIBLE is why these “Kindergarten litigators.” have not been sanctioned

    imagine if every court had sanctioned them the $20k imposed on the ditz?

    this FIASCO would have ended LONG AGO

    a while back, klayman begged for $25k to prosecute his fl & ca birther cases

    how would the begging go to cover the sanctions at $20k a clip?

  124. avatar
    tes June 17, 2012 at 12:57 pm #

    gorefan:
    Does anyone know why this case wasn’t consolidated with the Voeltz case?

    Just curious.

    Jerry Collette:
    Nobody has made such a motion. I expect that defendants will do so.

    The Voeltz case is in Second Circuit/Leon County.
    The Collette case is in Sixth Circuit/Pasco County.
    By what Florida court procedure could the two cases be consolidated? They’re not even brought in the same circuit.

  125. avatar
    JPotter June 17, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    brygenon: Oft I’ve wondered how many burgeoning birthers sought, got, and took competent legal advice. Alas, we’ll never know. We don’t hear about those.

    If they did, I doubt they would fess up to what they heard.

  126. avatar
    gorefan June 17, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    tes: The Voeltz case is in Second Circuit/Leon County.
    The Collette case is in Sixth Circuit/Pasco County.

    Gotcha, I assumed they were both Leon County.

    I take it Florida doesn’t have any rules for coordinating cases from different circuits.

  127. avatar
    nbc June 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    bgansel9: Wow! Roni Deutch wrote a testimony about Jerry: “The smartest paralegal that I have ever had the privilege of working with over the past twenty years is, hands down, Jerry Collette. I highly recommend that anyone in need of a legal genius immediately hire Jerry Collette.”

    So why does he write such poorly researched and argued motions? The ‘proof is in the pudding’…

  128. avatar
    Jerry Collette June 17, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    tes:
    The Voeltz case is in Second Circuit/Leon County.
    The Collette case is in Sixth Circuit/Pasco County.
    By what Florida court procedure could the two cases be consolidated?They’re not even brought in the same circuit.

    Two steps: Motion for change of venue to Leon County, then a motion to consolidate. The defendants are already challenging the Pasco County venue.

    P.S. to Tes. I went back and filled in my logical arguments with some black letter law case cites, and connected a few more logical dots. Thanks for your input. Best, Jerry

  129. avatar
    JD Reed June 17, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    G: I’m sorry, but what you said just isn’t making any sense to me… being on the ballot isn’t a critical and necessary component.Therefore, as I see it, YES, you absolutely are trying to stop them from advancing the candidacy and it seems utterly disingenuous and unrealistic to pretend and claim otherwise.

    Hear, hear!

  130. avatar
    bgansel9 June 17, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

    nbc: So why does he write such poorly researched and argued motions? The ‘proof is in the pudding’…

    Well, if I had to guess, I would say he filled his head with far too much pride about his great legal mind and didn’t pay much attention to actually understanding procedural instruction? LOL

  131. avatar
    Majority Will June 17, 2012 at 5:32 pm #

    JPotter: Not so fast, “flat” does not necessarily mean level; the Earth could be flat, but at any angle. But, since objects (at least in this frame of reference) fall straight down, I can say it’s level here, at least in respect to the center of gravity. (How do the Flat Earthers deal with gravity?).

    If not on Flat Earth, level becomes relative.

    Finally, your level might be out of calibration, but you would have checked that before posting, right?

    This post may seem off-topic, but I contend it ties back to my headspace comment above, getting at the psychological flaw in Mr. Collete’s work.

    I just read that everything in the universe doubled in size last night.

  132. avatar
    BillTheCat June 17, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    I notice that Jerry has not refuted the evidence presented here by the posters in this thread that it is settled law. Not surprising, cherry picking the facts to fit a losing narrative.

  133. avatar
    Northland10 June 17, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    donna: if they could just get that “forged” birth certificate on the record

    if their “expert witnesses” were just allowed to testify

    if their “evidence” was just allowed to be submitted

    if their cases could just be considered on the merits

    if the judges were just not paid off, marxist and corrupt

    if arpaio, zullo and corsi would just agree to testify in court

    if someone would just read “minor” ( the other day, a birther ask me if i had ever heard of “Minor v. Happersett’)

    if we could just have a “trial” (i guess like OJ)

    Except for the Arpaio testifying part, they would have the Georgia hearing. That went so well for them.