Main Menu

Tisdale dismissal affirmed

Another one bites the dust

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit earlier today issued a decision affirming District Judge Gibney’s dismissal of a ballot challenge by Mr. Tisdale against Barack Obama in Virginia, on the grounds that he was not a natural born citizen.

Judge Gibney wrote in his decision:

It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.

Today, in a terse unpublished order, the three-judge federal panel found no reversible error in the District Court decision and affirmed it. In what was news to me, we find that in addition to Tisdale’s pro se appeal, the court also accepted an amicus brief in the case from  Mario Apuzzo.

Read more:

, ,

17 Responses to Tisdale dismissal affirmed

  1. avatar
    wild bill June 5, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    Tisdale affirmed:

    http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/dailyopinions/opinion.pdf/121124.U.pdf

  2. avatar
    G June 5, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    Good find. Thank for sharing. Another birther appeal easily bites the dust…

    wild bill: Tisdale affirmed:http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/dailyopinions/opinion.pdf/121124.U.pdf

  3. avatar
    Majority Will June 5, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

    ” . . . the court also accepted an amicus brief in the case from Mario Apuzzo.”

    Yes, but meretricious Mario’s severe reading comprehension disability will prevent him from ever understanding what “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” means.

    Birther bigot blinders will leave them baffled.

  4. avatar
    JD Reed June 5, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    Droppin’ faster than flies!

  5. avatar
    Rickey June 5, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    And yet another precedent which rejects the two-citizen parent argument.

  6. avatar
    Andrew Vrba June 5, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

    *Insert “Mario falls into a pit”/”collides with a goomba” fanfare*

  7. avatar
    Lupin June 6, 2012 at 2:30 am #

    Majority Will:
    ” . . . the court also accepted an amicus brief in the case fromMario Apuzzo.”

    Yes, but meretricious Mario’s severe reading comprehension disability will prevent him from ever understanding what “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” means.

    I look forward to the Meretricious One’s 200-page-long blog post to explain to his sheeple the secret meaning of the above statement and how it is another great victory for the cause.

  8. avatar
    The Magic M June 6, 2012 at 4:24 am #

    My money is on “another 150 page lawsuit that rehashes the same arguments, laced with Orlyesque ‘if the court disagrees, it is committing treason’ bits”.

  9. avatar
    Majority Will June 6, 2012 at 6:10 am #

    Lupin: I look forward to the Meretricious One’s 200-page-long blog post to explain to his sheeple the secret meaning of the above statement and how it is another great victory for the cause.

    Maybe the putz will sell secret decoder rings.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

    I received the comment from Mr. Tisdale through the site comment form:

    The decision of the 4th circuit was a political not a legal decision from the panel. Obama hands are all over the decision. Our federal courts have a sworn duty to the Constitution not the Presidents who send them to the bench. These are simply politicians in Black Robes.

    A Natural Born Citizen is native born of two U.S. citizens, nothing more! Obama, Santorum, Romney, Jindal, Christy, and others are not eligible. An appeal for Interim Relief will be filed before the U.S. Supreme Court very shortly.

    In any event, Obama’s unlawful re-election no matter who he runs against, will not succeed. The man cannot have absolute devotion to the nation because he has divided loyalties through a foreign non-citizen parent which the founders spoke against in their adoption of Article II, Section I. and is reflective in Obama’s administration of government.

    The rights of every red-blooded American citizen born to U.S. Citizens is in deep peril, it’s our birth right to protect and I intend to do so at the U.S. Supreme Court. Stay Tuned!

  11. avatar
    gorefan June 6, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I received the comment through the site comment form:

    Any idea who sent it? Tisdale?

  12. avatar
    BillTheCat June 6, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    That makes 141 to 0. Great record birthers! 😀

    Gee, where’s John and YuTube to weigh in on these great victories?

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    That was the name on it. I edited the comment above to reflect that.

    gorefan: Any idea who sent it? Tisdale?

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

    While I wouldn’t mind the Supreme Court addressing issues in this case, the lack of standing probably robs them of jurisdiction. In any case, the fact that this case is not distinguished from the other cases that the Supreme Court declined to hear, suggests that they won’t hear this on either.

    Charles Tisdale: The rights of every red-blooded American citizen born to U.S. Citizens is in deep peril, it’s our birth right to protect and I intend to do so at the U.S. Supreme Court. Stay Tuned!

    I’ll certainly “stay tuned.”

  15. avatar
    Rickey June 6, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I received the comment from Mr. Tisdale through the site comment form:

    A Natural Born Citizen is native born of two U.S. citizens, nothing more! Obama, Santorum, Romney, Jindal, Christy, and others are not eligible. An appeal for Interim Relief will be filed before the U.S. Supreme Court very shortly.

    What’s a birther voter to do? Two candidates for President and neither is qualified. Quite the conundrum.

  16. avatar
    Paper June 6, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

    I’m not so sure about that “nothing more.” I think someone is a natural born citizen who is native born of three parents. That happens these days.

    Dr. Conspiracy: A Natural Born Citizen is native born of two U.S. citizens, nothing more!

  17. avatar
    brygenon June 7, 2012 at 1:17 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: While I wouldn’t mind the Supreme Court addressing issues in this case, the lack of standing probably robs them of jurisdiction. In any case, the fact that this case is not distinguished from the other cases that the Supreme Court declined to hear, suggests that they won’t hear this on either.

    I don’t think standing is much of an issue here. The defense argued standing in their brief on appeal, but the Circuit Court did not even mention it in their order. The Circuit Court simply affirmed the District Court’s order.

    The District Court had dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The claims failed precisely because the two-citizen-parent theory is wrong on the law.
    http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/tisdale_dc_order.pdf

    Theoretically, U.S. Supreme Court could grant certiorari under their Rule 10(c):

    “a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.”
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_10

    Will they? Not a chance. You might think a Supreme Court decision affirming Obama’s eligibility would be a nice thing to have, but during the time between the grant of cert and the decision, there would be be doubts about the legitimacy of the government.