Main Menu

The judge was not impressed

Plaintiff [Orly Taitz] can rest assured that if any reasonable grounds existed for me to recuse myself from this case, I would have done so, if for no other reason than to avoid spending precious time on such frivolous filings. But, my responsibilities require me to handle dutifully the cases assigned to me.

— Federal Judge Ellen L. Hollander
Taitz v. Colvin

And so Orly Taitz’s motion for reconsideration and recusal of the judge was summarily rejected in a 7-page memorandum. Judge Hollander makes it clear that she is quite familiar with who Orly Taitz is, and her litigation history on behalf of the “’birther’ movement.” Judge Hollander points out that the time limit provided by statute had already passed, when Taitz filed her motion.

Judge Hollander notes:

Ms. Taitz has not provided any legal authority for the proposition that, if the President were removed from office, this judge or the hundreds of other executive and judicial branch appointees selected by him and then confirmed by the Senate would also become disqualified from their offices.

Nor has any other birther cited any legal authority for this widely-birther-held theory.

,

175 Responses to The judge was not impressed

  1. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 28, 2014 at 10:37 am #

    Speaking of Orly, Judge Hollander has issued a memorandum re the motion for post-judgment recusal. It’s a great read. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Taitz-v-Colvin-refusal-to-recuse.pdf

  2. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 28, 2014 at 10:50 am #

    Perhaps this is a candidate for quote of the day, from a judge with the bad luck to be stuck with one of Orly’s cases. From Judge Hollander:

    “Plaintiff can rest assured that if any reasonable grounds existed for me to recuse myself from this case, I would have done so, if for no other reason than to avoid spending precious time on such frivolous filings. But, my responsibilities require me to handle dutifully the cases assigned to me.”

    p.s. the memorandum is chuck-full of memorable quotes.

  3. avatar
    Benji Franklin July 28, 2014 at 10:58 am #

    Two captions explaining the Orly Taitz statue above

    Orly Taitz, 6 years from now as the harried bath room attendant at the grand opening of the Obama Presidential Library!

    Orly Taitz in an Ureaic Acid stupor after naively relying entirely on the passion of a disbarred male attorney for her fluid intake during a recent marathon cavity filling session in the Dental Chair of Love!

  4. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 28, 2014 at 11:08 am #

    J.D. Sue:

    p.s.the memorandum is chuck-full of memorable quotes.

    None of which, apparently, Taitz bothered to read or comprehend.

    I think the good judge showed admirable restraint.

  5. avatar
    realist July 28, 2014 at 11:38 am #

    While stopping short of issuing an OSC for sanctions, Judge Hollander zinged her in a way that would be humiliating to any real attorney. Not Orly though.

    Taitz v Colvin – Memorandum denying all of Orly’s recent motion to recuse and reopen, etc. in all respects.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/235282937/2014-07-25-ECF-44-Taitz-v-Colvin-MEMORANDUM-Refusal-to-Reopen-and-Recuse

    “Ms. Taitz has not provided any legal authority for the proposition that, if the President were removed from office, this judge or the hundreds of other executive and judicial branch appointees selected by him and then confirmed by the Senate would also become disqualified from their offices. I suppose that if the Court ruled that SSA’s search was inadequate, and if SSA conducted a new search, and if SSA located an SS-5 for Mr. Bounel (who may or may not exist), and if the Court ordered SSA to release the SS-5 (despite the several FOIA exemptions that may apply), and if Mr. Bounel’s SSN matched that of President Obama, and if President Obama’s use of the SSN was fraudulent, and if the reason for the fraud was that President Obama was not eligible for the presidency, and if that led to the nullification of President Obama’s presidency, and if that also rendered President Obama’s judicial appointments null and void, and if no action was taken to re-appoint and reinstate the affected judges, then, perhaps, it could be said that I had an interest that was affected by the outcome of the case. But, that possibility is so speculative and so attenuated that it does not mandate recusal here.”

  6. avatar
    donna July 28, 2014 at 11:39 am #

    J.D. Sue:

    p.s.the memorandum is chuck-full of memorable quotes.

    i LOVE this one: on page 6: I suppose that if the Court ruled that SSA’s search was inadequate, and if SSA conducted a new search, and if SSA located an SS-5 for Mr. Bounel (who may or may not exist), and if the Court ordered SSA to release the SS-5 (despite the several FOIA exemptions that may apply), and if Mr. Bounel’s SSN matched that of President Obama, and if President Obama’s use of the SSN was fraudulent, and if the reason for the fraud was that President Obama was not eligible for the presidency, and if that led to the nullification of President Obama’s presidency, and if that also rendered President Obama’s judicial appointments null and void, and if no action was taken to reappoint and reinstate the affected judges, then, perhaps, it could be said that I had an interest that was affected by the outcome of the case. But, that possibility is so speculative and so attenuated that it does not mandate recusal here.

  7. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 28, 2014 at 12:05 pm #

    Authority, you say?

    How about wishful thinking…..the second most powerful authority in the birther universe…..right after hatred.

  8. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 28, 2014 at 12:08 pm #

    realist: While stopping short of issuing an OSC for sanctions, Judge Hollander zinged her in a way that would be humiliating to any real attorney.

    —-
    Indeed. And this one: “In any event, it is worth observing that school children in this country are taught about the central components of our democracy, including the three branches of government and the doctrine of separation of powers. . . . ” memorandum at 5.

  9. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 28, 2014 at 12:23 pm #

    Next up: Taitz moves for recusal because she was not, in fact, a school child in this country, and Judge Hollander is clearly racist against Moldovans.

  10. avatar
    JPotter July 28, 2014 at 12:26 pm #

    Ah yes, the Birfer Wayback Machine. Sometimes referred to as the Magic Reset Button. Always struck me as an attempt to reverse the flow of time, requiring an assault on the fundamental nature of the universe.Thus, any mortal legal authority would be far insufficient.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2014 at 12:34 pm #

    The quotation that interested me in dismissing Taitz’s claim of “new evidence” was this:

    What seems more likely is that Ms. Taitz is attempting to manipulate the system, by strategically resorting to the tactic of filing such a motion because she is disgruntled with the outcome of the case. See, e.g., Rhodes, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (involving Ms. Taitz ’s recusal request and accusing the judge of treason); Cook v. Simtech, Inc. , 09 – cv – 1382 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (involving a recusal request by Ms. Taitz).

    I know that somebody sent the court screen shots of Taitz’ web site where Orly obviously knew who appointed Hollander. That case citation above was the one where Taitz was sanctioned $20,000.

    Talk about judicial restraint!

  12. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 28, 2014 at 12:40 pm #

    Referring to Taitz’ most infamous case, where she was sanctioned for $20k, was most definitely a shot across the bow. For some reason, I don’t think she has learned or will learn from this lesson.

  13. avatar
    Andrew Morris July 28, 2014 at 1:15 pm #

    With Senate confirmation, the de facto officer doctrine kicks in. But as Hollander says, this is a pile of crap because there simply isn’t a case. Taitz got off lightly because she clearly lied to the court. For that she should be disbarred.

  14. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 28, 2014 at 1:18 pm #

    Its a shame a judge just can up and tell Taitz, “If you bring this kind of garbage before me again, I will beat you with my gavel, until you stop twitching!”, because I’m pretty sure more than a couple are thinking it.

    Bonsall Obot:
    Next up: Taitz moves for recusal because she was not, in fact, a school child in this country, and Judge Hollander is clearly racist against Moldovans.

    I read that as “racist against Mongolians”.

  15. avatar
    Bovril July 28, 2014 at 1:34 pm #

    On of my favourite gentle inserts of stilleto between ribs


    “Plaintiff claims she is a licensed attorney in California and a licensed Doctor of Dental Surgery. See ECF 43-2 at 54 ¶ 1 (Declaration of Orly Taitz); Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1368 n.3 (M.D. Ga. 2009).”

    Seems the judge does not feel this necessarily a truthful statement of fact……. 😎

  16. avatar
    bgansel9 July 28, 2014 at 1:36 pm #

    I hate to ask, but can someone with knowledge of the count please give us a new tally? I know it’s a big number for our side and none for theirs, but, the count confuses me. Much appreciation to whomever can give an update on that information. Thank you.

  17. avatar
    Reality Check July 28, 2014 at 2:47 pm #

    The Birther Scorecard is 0 wins and 226 losses for the Birthers. I am not sure if this one counts since it was already a loss in a district court case. It is an action I suppose.

    Here’s the link:

    Birther Scorecard

    What a record!

  18. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 28, 2014 at 3:15 pm #

    Reality Check:
    The Birther Scorecard is 0 wins and 226 losses for the Birthers. I am not sure if this one counts since it was already a loss in a district court case. It is an action I suppose.

    Here’s the link:

    Birther Scorecard

    What a record!

    They’re certainly a consistent bunch. A perfect record that has NO chance of ever being blemished by an errant victory.

  19. avatar
    alg July 28, 2014 at 3:21 pm #

    Honestly, I cannot say how it is the judge was not duly impressed and thoroughly intimidated with Orly’s state-of-the-art lawyering. 😀

  20. avatar
    bovril July 28, 2014 at 5:13 pm #

    I prefer to call Mad Old Orlys vomitude ‘legal mongering’

  21. avatar
    Fred Flintstone July 28, 2014 at 5:40 pm #

    Doc, can I ask why didn’t the judge exact penalties against Mr. Taitz?

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 28, 2014 at 5:57 pm #

    In this case we can only guess, but most judges don’t like sanctions.

    Fred Flintstone:
    Doc, can I ask why didn’t the judge exact penalties against Mr. Taitz?

  23. avatar
    Rickey July 28, 2014 at 6:12 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In this case we can only guess, but most judges don’t like sanctions.

    And it’s clear that Judge Hollander has had her fill of Orly. Assessing sanctions would have elicited an appeal which would have eaten up more of the judge’s time.

    In addition, Judge Hollander is obviously well-versed in Orly’s birther litigation, and she must have recognized that Taitz v. Colvin was pretty much Orly’s last gasp.

  24. avatar
    Janny July 28, 2014 at 6:56 pm #

    Just on her site and it’s all in Russian. Apparently she has now gone to the Dark Side!

  25. avatar
    BillTheCat July 28, 2014 at 7:11 pm #

    I think sanctions have to be requested by the opposing counsel in order for them to be granted? No?

  26. avatar
    SuzieC July 28, 2014 at 7:30 pm #

    BillTheCat: No, a judge can sua sponte (on his or her own motion) impose sanctions. That’s what Judge Clay Land did in the Rhodes v. McDonald litigation.

  27. avatar
    realist July 28, 2014 at 7:36 pm #

    BillTheCat:
    I think sanctions have to be requested by the opposing counsel in order for them to be granted? No?

    No. Judges can sanction attorneys sua sponte (on their own motion) but it’s relatively rare for them to do so. Judge Land did so.

    However, judges are very busy with real cases that affect real people and want those nuts like Orly out of their courtroom/hair as quickly as possible.

    She would have had to issue and Order to Show Cause. Orly responds. Then the judge has to issue an Order of sanctions. Then Orly files for reconsideration. The judge has to take the time to deny that Then Orly appeals, etc.

    Unfortunately, sometimes it’s just not worth and, also unfortunately people like Orly get away with their abuse. It is better, however, than some rogue judges just issuing sanctions right and left.

  28. avatar
    Northland10 July 28, 2014 at 7:43 pm #

    realist: No. Judges can sanction attorneys sua sponte (on their own motion) but it’s relatively rare for them to do so. Judge Land did so.

    In the footnotes of Judge Land’s Order Imposing Sanction

    The Court does not take this action lightly, and in fact, cannot recall having previously imposed monetary sanctions upon an attorney sua sponte.

  29. avatar
    bob July 28, 2014 at 7:48 pm #

    Also: Filing a lawsuit against the government, without fear of reprisal, is among the things that makes the United States a better place than Taitz’s country of origin.

    That is not to say some people abuse the system, and the government has on occasion sanctioned those who have, but there are reasonable policy considerations for not inhibiting lawsuits against the government.

    In other words: frivolous lawsuits are the cost of business for keeping the courthouse doors as open as possible.

  30. avatar
    Jim July 28, 2014 at 7:53 pm #

    Judge Land had to see Orly twice…he was not impressed.

    “Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court. When she filed the Rhodes case, counsel indicated that it was urgent that the matter be heard because her client was facing imminent deployment. The Court rearranged its schedule, took time to read the legal papers, and conducted preliminary research in preparation for the hearing. The Army had to activate its legal team on short notice, sending a Major from the Army Litigation Division in Washington, D.C. and a Captain from the CONUS Replacement Center at Ft. Benning. In addition, the Assistant U.S. Attorney had to accompany them. Like the Court, the government attorneys had to prepare in an expedited manner for the hearing. During the week preceding Captain Rhodes’s deployment, the Court was in the midst of a jury trial. Therefore, the Court had to alter the trial schedule to conduct the hearing during an extended lunch break, thus affecting other counsel and jurors. The Clerk’s Office was burdened by Ms. Taitz’s inability to follow the Court’s rules regarding pro hac vice admission and the Court’s rules for electronic filing. On five separate occasions in a short period, the Clerk’s Office personnel error-noticed counsel for her failure to follow simple rules. At the hearing, counsel failed to make coherent legal arguments but instead wasted the Court’s time with press conference sound bites and speeches.”

  31. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 28, 2014 at 8:55 pm #

    Janny:
    Just on her site and it’s all in Russian. Apparently she has now gone to the Dark Side!

    Its Hebrew; looks like she tried to post an article from Haaretz and it borked the code.

    Everything she touches turns to poop.

  32. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 28, 2014 at 10:21 pm #

    Ordure Orly, the Fractal Feckwit.

  33. avatar
    Curious George July 28, 2014 at 10:26 pm #

    And lest we not forget, the good doctor claims that she turned her evidence over to the Cold Case Possums. Is she attempting to sabotage their illustrious effort?

  34. avatar
    RanTalbott July 29, 2014 at 3:09 am #

    Curious George: the Cold Case Possums

    Aha! So that’s why we haven’t heard anything from Zullo lately: he was frightened by the Montgomery revelations, and is feigning death. He does come from the east coast, y’know.

    I think Orly needs to file a FOIA request for any pictures of his feet, to find out whether his big toes are opposable…

    Curious George: Is she attempting to sabotage their illustrious effort?

    Nah: she would never deliberately attempt to do anything like that. It’s just a natural toxic by-product of her process. Like beef production and methane.

  35. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 29, 2014 at 6:04 am #

    Andrew Morris:
    With Senate confirmation, the de facto officer doctrine kicks in. But as Hollander says, this is a pile of crap because there simply isn’t a case. Taitz got off lightly because she clearly lied to the court. For that she should be disbarred.

    The de facto officer doctrine only applies to statutory technical defects. Constitutional violations can never be ratified and made Constitutional without an amendment to the Constitution. Even then, the Constitution cannot be retroactively amended. Once an act is declared unconstitutional, its unconstitutional forever.

    Judge Hollander suggests that if Obama is found ineligible, the judges and federal officers in violation of the Appointments Clause will be re-instated. Obviously, Judge Hollander considers violations of the Constitution to be a technical issue and not an attack on the United States’ sovereignty.

  36. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 29, 2014 at 6:19 am #

    Fred Flintstone:
    Doc, can I ask why didn’t the judge exact penalties against Mr. Taitz?

    It would motivate Orly to file an Appointments Clause challenge to Judge Hollander after appointment by President Obama. Orly can still file an Appointments Clause challenge with an appeal because violations of the Constitution are taken very seriously by the Judicial Branch.

    Nguyen v. United States 539 U.S. 69 (2003) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/69/case.html

    ” Neither petitioner objected to the panel’s composition before the cases were submitted for decision, and neither sought rehearing to challenge the panel’s authority to decide their appeals after it affirmed their convictions. However, each filed a certiorari petition claiming that the judgment is invalid because a non-Article III judge participated on the panel.”

    For some oddball reason, Orly is afraid to appeal or she’s not really trying to expose Obama as ineligible.

  37. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 29, 2014 at 7:15 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    For some oddball reason, Orly is afraid to appeal or she’s not really trying to expose Obama as ineligible.

    By that standard, neither are you, seeing as how you haven’t filed a suit or anything but your amicus brief in the McInnish case. You whine on the internet, but you’re unwilling to put your ridiculous legal theories to the test.

  38. avatar
    realist July 29, 2014 at 7:23 am #

    SvenMagnussen: It would motivate Orly to file an Appointments Clause challenge to Judge Hollander after appointment by President Obama. Orly can still file an Appointments Clause challenge with an appeal because violations of the Constitution are taken very seriously by the Judicial Branch.

    No surprise. Another birther with a ridiculous assertion as relates to this case.

    I really wish Orly would try such nonsense. First, she’s incompetent to do so properly, even if it applied here, which it doesn’t.

    Of course, then all you nutbags would only then claim more judges were complicit in the coverup, etc., ,ad nauseum.

  39. avatar
    realist July 29, 2014 at 7:26 am #

    SvenMagnussen: udge Hollander suggests that if Obama is found ineligible, the judges and federal officers in violation of the Appointments Clause will be re-instated.

    Really? And where, exactly, would that suggestion be contained in her memorandum?

    No one would need to be re-installed because they were properly installed at the time. You idiots seem to think that if Obama were found ineligible (he’s not, and he won’t be… ever) that there would be some magic reset button. Wouldn’t. Happen.

  40. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 29, 2014 at 7:39 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Judge Hollander suggests that if Obama is found ineligible, the judges and federal officers in violation of the Appointments Clause will be re-instated.

    She never said that. That is a fundamental misreading of the long string of IF statements the judge made. It’s extraordinarily dishonest to claim otherwise, even by the standard of routine mendacity you’ve set.

  41. avatar
    realist July 29, 2014 at 8:07 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Nguyen v. United States 539 U.S. 69 (2003) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/69/case.html

    ” Neither petitioner objected to the panel’s composition before the cases were submitted for decision, and neither sought rehearing to challenge the panel’s authority to decide their appeals after it affirmed their convictions. However, each filed a certiorari petition claiming that the judgment is invalid because a non-Article III judge participated on the panel.”

    Please, enlighten us, oh great reader of precedent, how citing Nguyen v U.S. has any relation to your notion that Judge Hollander was not properly appointed.

    Hint: It is not on point at all, but I’d love to hear your version of how it is.

  42. avatar
    Reality Check July 29, 2014 at 8:32 am #

    I think that is the answer. Sanctions orders would add more work to an already busy judge’s schedule and take away time from real cases. By spreading around her manure she has for the most part avoided sanctions, except for the misstep in Georgia. I think if Orly had filed all her nonsense in one jurisdiction she would long ago have been disbarred and declared a vex lit.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    In this case we can only guess, but most judges don’t like sanctions.

    SvenMagnussen: For some oddball reason, Orly is afraid to appeal or she’s not really trying to expose Obama as ineligible.

  43. avatar
    John Reilly July 29, 2014 at 9:17 am #

    Sven is a racist troll.

    Sven refuses, absolutely refuses, to address the point that Congress has already determined Pres. Obama qualified. Having done so, the only way to remove him is through impeachment and conviction. Why Sven, do you hate our Constitution so?

  44. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 29, 2014 at 10:59 am #

    John Reilly: Having done so, the only way to remove him is through impeachment and conviction.

    The problem of the “an ineligible President can be removed by force any time” claim is totally lost on RWNJ’s. If that were true, one rogue judge could’ve declared GWB ineligible and ordered his immediate arrest, and there’s nothing Congress would’ve been able to do against ist.

    The pattern of “let’s ignore the Constitution and the rest of the law of the land whenever it suits us” shows what these people would do if they ever rose to the power to actually do harm. (I “fondly” remember how the birfer nut known as “OPOVV” claimed the first thing he’d do when elected Prez would be to throw out all Muslims on the spot, including those who are US citizens.)

  45. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 29, 2014 at 10:59 am #

    Sven hates America and everything it stands for. He urinates on the flag and wipes with the Constitution.

  46. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 29, 2014 at 1:28 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Obviously, Judge Hollander considers violations of the Constitution to be a technical issue

    —-
    Obviously, you either don’t know how to read a legal memorandum, or you require lying to make a point.

  47. avatar
    realist July 29, 2014 at 1:30 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —-
    Obviously, you either don’t know how to read a legal memorandum, or you require lying to make a point.

    I vote for both.

  48. avatar
    CCB July 29, 2014 at 1:37 pm #

    Bob made a good point about the cost of an open courthouse is birther litigation. As far as deterring or disciplining Taitz, it might be helpful to consider the following.

    Fining an attorney for improper conduct works if the attorney is in the business of practicing law, that is, to make a profit. My impression is that Taitz practices dentistry rather than law so there is no connection between her legal incompetence and her business. More likely, Taitz is bringing lawsuits for what we called “secondary benefit”, that is, not to gain money but for some other purpose – justice, truth, right, publicity, unresolved issues with Moldovan SSR, or some other purpose.

    Likewise, disbarring her might impede her access to the courts but she would, most likely, continue to appear pro per. I say “continue” because it appears that she does not represent her clients’ best interests but her own. Well, you can tell people “”anyone who represents himself in court has a fool for a client and an ass for an attorney.” but in most cases they are in court because they haven’t and don’t listen to advice.

    For example, Taitz’ filing in this case was not for the purpose of re-opening the case. What she wanted to do was put in the record why she thought she lost. Her reason for losing was not, as the rest of the world recognizes, a bad cause badly pled but the prejudice or self-interest of the judge. The judge’s response only feeds the fire since, I expect, Taitz will take it as somehow confirming her allegations. While I understand the judge’s anger, a more devastating response would have been to ignore Taitz. This would have forced Taitz to engage in more foolishness or simply go away. In either case, the judge/clerk could have addressed real litigation with real people and real problems.

    Taitz is a legal troll. I think the preferred response to trolls is to do nothing or, if anything at all, to wait as long as possible.and then be as brief as possible. Sometimes, they will go away.

  49. avatar
    Rickey July 29, 2014 at 2:57 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Judge Hollander suggests that if Obama is found ineligible, the judges and federal officers in violation of the Appointments Clause will be re-instated. Obviously, Judge Hollander considers violations of the Constitution to be a technical issue and not an attack on the United States’ sovereignty.

    Actually, she doesn’t say that at all. She suggests that if Obama were found to be ineligible and if that led to the nullification of his judicial appointments, it would be possible that the affected judges could be re-appointed and reinstated, presumably by President Biden with the consent of the Senate. However, she goes on to say that the entire scenario is “speculative” and “attenuated,” which pretty well describes every birther argument you have raised since 2008.

    There is no evidence that Obama is ineligible. The impetus for Taitz v. Colvin was Orly’s desperation to find some evidence that Obama was using a Social Security Number that was issued to a Russian immigrant named Harrison “Harry” Bounel. Orly’s problem is that Harry Bounel never existed. The name doesn’t appear in any immigration records, and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the “Harry Bounel” who appears in the 1940 census actually is Harry Boymel, an immigrant from Russia who was born in 1886 and was issued SSN 080-18-6078 in July, 1941. It has been confirmed that Obama’s SSN, 042-68-xxxx, was issued when Harry Boymel was 90 or 91 years old.

  50. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 29, 2014 at 3:30 pm #

    Further, the likelihood that the President is still using the 042-68-xxxx SSN, after Taitz and her flying monkeys discovered it, abused it and plastered it all over the internet is too small to measure with available technology.

  51. avatar
    CarlOrcas July 29, 2014 at 5:00 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: For some oddball reason, Orly is afraid to appeal or she’s not really trying to expose Obama as ineligible.

    Or maybe she’s brighter than we think she is. Or, at least, brighter than you are.

  52. avatar
    realist July 29, 2014 at 5:07 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Or maybe she’s brighter than we think she is. Or, at least, brighter than you are.

    Orly now claims on her site that she has filed a Notice of Appeal. She’s 18 days late, and setting that aside she’ll lose, but she doesn’t care about that. She cares about saying she has an “active” case and then she can once again scream corruption when she loses. Rinse/repeat.

  53. avatar
    Sef July 29, 2014 at 6:57 pm #

    Rickey: “attenuated”

    Carbon pot instead of wire-wound.

  54. avatar
    RanTalbott July 29, 2014 at 9:15 pm #

    CCB: Likewise, disbarring her might impede her access to the courts but she would, most likely, continue to appear pro per

    Or, in her case, “anti per”. She’s the best argument I’ve ever seen for the existence of demonic possession: she seems to find every possible thing to do that undermines her efforts, short of bursting into the courtroom naked and screaming. I guess she reserves that for her dental practice…

  55. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 29, 2014 at 10:41 pm #

    RanTalbott:…short of bursting into the courtroom naked and screaming.

    Thanks for that image…

    *grabs the industrial-sized bottle of brain bleach*

  56. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 30, 2014 at 11:11 am #

    Rickey: Actually, she doesn’t say that at all. She suggests that if Obama were found to be ineligible and if that led to the nullification of his judicial appointments, it would be possible that the affected judges could be re-appointed and reinstated, presumably by President Biden with the consent of the Senate. However, she goes on to say that the entire scenario is “speculative” and “attenuated,” which pretty well describes every birther argument you have raised since 2008.

    There is no evidence that Obama is ineligible. The impetus for Taitz v. Colvin was Orly’s desperation to find some evidence that Obama was using a Social Security Number that was issued to a Russian immigrant named Harrison “Harry” Bounel. Orly’s problem is that Harry Bounel never existed. The name doesn’t appear in any immigration records, and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the “Harry Bounel” who appears in the 1940 census actually is Harry Boymel, an immigrant from Russia who was born in 1886 and was issued SSN 080-18-6078 in July, 1941. It has been confirmed that Obama’s SSN, 042-68-xxxx, was issued when Harry Boymel was 90 or 91 years old.

    If Judge Hollander understood the ramification of a sitting President being found ineligible, then she would not propose a scenario where a sitting federal judge could be re-instated to the bench after being found to have assumed the position in violation of the Appointments Clause.In fact, Judge Hollander should have addressed President Obama’s eligibility after ruling on Orly’s FOIA. Dismissing Orly’s FOIA, whether is was proper or not, is irrelevant to Judge Hollander’s oath to support the Constitution.

    Judge Hollander cannot use Orly’s lack of evidence or inadmissible evidence or lack of justiciability or lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the court as an excuse not to investigate President Obama’s eligibility. If Orly appeals, the Circuit Court will remand to litigate the eligibility issue even though they will affirm Judge Hollander’s decision on the FOIA case.

  57. avatar
    DaveH July 30, 2014 at 11:16 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Judge Hollander cannot use Orly’s lack of evidence or inadmissible evidence or or lack of justiciability or lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the court as an excuse not to investigate President Obama’s eligibility. If Orly appeals, the Circuit Court will remand to litigate the eligibility issue even though they will affirm Judge Hollander’s decision on the FOIA case.

    Orly is too late to appeal and even IF she did, the Circuit Court would not remand it back to Hollander’s court. They would know that Orly is full of crap just as you are.

  58. avatar
    realist July 30, 2014 at 11:25 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If Judge Hollander understood the ramification of a sitting President being found ineligible, then she would not propose a scenario where a sitting federal judge could be re-instated to the bench after being found to have assumed the position in violation of the Appointments Clause.In fact, Judge Hollander should have addressed President Obama’s eligibility after ruling on Orly’s FOIA. Dismissing Orly’s FOIA, whether is was proper or not, is irrelevant to Judge Hollander’s oath to support the Constitution.

    Judge Hollander cannot use Orly’s lack of evidence or inadmissible evidence or lack of justiciability or lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the court as an excuse not to investigate President Obama’s eligibility. If Orly appeals, the Circuit Court will remand to litigate the eligibility issue even though they will affirm Judge Hollander’s decision on the FOIA case.

    Judge Hollander upholds and upheld her oath in this case by adjudicating the case before her, a simple FOIA case, one which has been adjudicated several times previous. The only issue before her was whether there was a proper search. There was and she so held and dismissed Orly’s ridiculous frivolous lawsuit.

    Judges don’t investigate, they adjudicate. Period. No, the appeal court will not remand for anything. They will affirm Judge Hollander’s ruling… end of story. Nothing about Obama’s eligibility was before Judge Hollander nor will it be before the appeal court.

    Obama is not a party to this case. The Court has no authority to order him to do anything.

    You don’t get to just make shit up. You don’t get to litigate issues not before the court either in the lower court or the court of appeal. And you don’t get to order non-parties to do anything.

  59. avatar
    Jim July 30, 2014 at 11:28 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Judge Hollander cannot use Orly’s lack of evidence or inadmissible evidence or lack of justiciability or lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the court as an excuse not to investigate President Obama’s eligibility. If Orly appeals, the Circuit Court will remand to litigate the eligibility issue even though they will affirm Judge Hollander’s decision on the FOIA case.

    One of these days Sven, you’ll learn that the courts work how the Constitution says and not how your wet dreams think they should work. The President’s eligibility won’t even be a part of the appeal, if it even gets that far.

  60. avatar
    HistorianDude July 30, 2014 at 11:48 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Judge Hollander cannot use Orly’s lack of evidence or inadmissible evidence or lack of justiciability or lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the court as an excuse not to investigate President Obama’s eligibility.

    Is that not honestly the single dumbest sentence you have read on the Internet in days? It is for me… and given the time I have spent this week on “Family Security Matters,” that’s saying a lot.

  61. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 30, 2014 at 12:10 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Judge Hollander cannot use … lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the court as an excuse not to investigate President Obama’s eligibility.


    Sven, I’d love to see a cite for this proposition. Just one, from any court anywhere ever. Or any cite to the Constitution, or a statute, or a law review article, or anything….

  62. avatar
    Andrew Morris July 30, 2014 at 12:17 pm #

    Sven is actually typical of most retard/birther types who scream about how Obama “shreds” the Constitution, which is a document they’ve clearly never read, and certainly haven’t understood.

  63. avatar
    Rickey July 30, 2014 at 12:17 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: If Judge Hollander understood the ramification of a sitting President being found ineligible, then she would not propose a scenario where a sitting federal judge could be re-instated to the bench after being found to have assumed the position in violation of the Appointments Clause.

    That’s one of the dumbest things you’ve said to date. She wasn’t “proposing a scenario,” she was giving a hypothetical response to a hypothetical scenario. A scenario which, in her own words, is “speculative” and “attenuated.” Even you must realize that judges do not take actions based upon mere speculation.

    Judge Hollander cannot use Orly’s lack of evidence or inadmissible evidence or lack of justiciability or lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the court as an excuse not to investigate President Obama’s eligibility. If Orly appeals, the Circuit Court will remand to litigate the eligibility issue even though they will affirm Judge Hollander’s decision on the FOIA case.

    That is an even dumber comment. Orly’s appeal, if she files it, is too late and will be rejected faster than you can say “Sven Magnussen is a mendacious troll.”

  64. avatar
    realist July 30, 2014 at 12:33 pm #

    Rickey: That is an even dumber comment. Orly’s appeal, if she files it, is too late and will be rejected faster than you can say “Sven Magnussen is a mendacious troll.”

    Her Notice of Appeal was filed out of time. True. That may or may not get it kicked.

    She will however (I think) be able to get a review de novo of her Motion for Reconsideration and Treason (or whatever the heck is was)

  65. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 30, 2014 at 1:46 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Judge Hollander cannot use Orly’s lack of evidence or inadmissible evidence or lack of justiciability or lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the court as an excuse not to investigate President Obama’s eligibility.

    That’s really stupid.

    SvenMagnussen:

    Judge Hollander should have addressed President Obama’s eligibility after ruling on Orly’s FOIA.

    Judge Hollander addresses President Obama’s eligibility every day that she shows up to work. Even a senile slip-and-fall attorney can see that.

  66. avatar
    nbc July 30, 2014 at 2:15 pm #

    realist: She will however (I think) be able to get a review de novo of her Motion for Reconsideration and Treason (or whatever the heck is was)

    And the Appeals court will have a fun time denying such review. Judge Hollander was quite thorough in her response. Orly however has no choice but to stumble around aimlessly.

  67. avatar
    bgansel9 July 30, 2014 at 5:07 pm #

    Rickey: Even you must realize that judges do not take actions based upon mere speculation.

    Sven comes from an ideology that believes judicial activism is okay, so long as it’s the correct type of judicial activism.

  68. avatar
    alg July 30, 2014 at 10:18 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: “Judge Hollander cannot use Orly’s lack of evidence or inadmissible evidence or lack of justiciability or lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the court as an excuse not to investigate President Obama’s eligibility.”

    Judges do not “investigate.” They rule on the questions in front of them. In this case the question was whether or not the SSA conducted a proper records search and nothing else. Orly offered no probative evidence that they had not. Consequently she lost the case.

    The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. Taitz failed to meet that burden. No request for reconsideration or appeal is going to change that. The question is effectively answered and it’s a big fact “NO.”

  69. avatar
    justlw July 30, 2014 at 10:31 pm #

    Reality Check: The Birther Scorecard is 0 wins and 226 losses for the Birthers.

    Well, to paraphrase another swell bunch of fellows, “Today, we were rightly called out for being bat-guano crazy for the 226th time. But remember we only have to completely subvert the laws of the land — or basically, the principles of reality as most people understand it — once. You will have to be prepared to point and laugh at us always.”

  70. avatar
    The Magic M July 31, 2014 at 3:59 am #

    nbc: And the Appeals court will have a fun time denying such review.

    I can haz sanctions now? I mean, appeals courts usually don’t like being given unnecessary work by a lawyer (!) who should know better.

  71. avatar
    The Magic M July 31, 2014 at 4:05 am #

    Andrew Morris: Sven is actually typical of most retard/birther types who scream about how Obama “shreds” the Constitution, which is a document they’ve clearly never read, and certainly haven’t understood.

    Projection, always projection. Not just birthers, the entire right wing.

  72. avatar
    The Magic M July 31, 2014 at 4:11 am #

    SvenMagnussen: If Orly appeals, the Circuit Court will remand to litigate the eligibility issue even though they will affirm Judge Hollander’s decision on the FOIA case.

    How much money are you willing to bet on that? Asking for a friend.

  73. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 31, 2014 at 8:14 am #

    realist: Her Notice of Appeal was filed out of time.True.That may or may not get it kicked.

    She will however (I think) be able to get a review de novo of her Motion for Reconsideration and Treason (or whatever the heck is was)

    You need to explain de novo because some here do not believe a judicial panel in the Circuit Court should investigate a Constitutional question presented with a case that lacks controversy or jurisdiction in the District Court.

    And Judge Hollander doesn’t think it’s a big deal if a federal judge was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause. Ha Ha Ha!

  74. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 31, 2014 at 8:32 am #

    J.D. Sue: —
    Sven, I’d love to see a cite for this proposition. Just one, from any court anywhere ever.Or any cite to the Constitution, or a statute, or a law review article, or anything….

    Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490, 403 U.S. App. D.C. 350, 194 LRRM 3089 (D.C. Cir. 2013) [2013 BL 20942]

    It is a well-settled principle of constitutional adjudication that courts “will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.” Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 , 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring); see also Spector Motor Serv., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101 , 105 (1944); United States v. Waksberg, 112 F.3d 1225 , 1227 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

  75. avatar
    realist July 31, 2014 at 8:42 am #

    SvenMagnussen: You need to explain de novo because some here do not believe a judicial panel in the Circuit Court should investigate a Constitutional question presented with a case that lacks controversy or jurisdiction in the District Court.

    And Judge Hollander doesn’t think it’s a big deal if a federal judge was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause. Ha Ha Ha!

    DE NOVO

    From Latin, meaning “from the new.” When a court hears a case de novo, it is deciding the issues without reference to the legal conclusions or assumptions made by the previous court to hear the case. An appeals court hearing a case de novo may refer to the trial court’s record to determine the facts, but will but rule on the evidence and matters of law without giving deference to that court’s findings. A trial court may also hear a case de novo following the appeal of an arbitration decision.

    See e.g. Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005)

    And Judge Hollander never said or even intimated such re the appointments clause.

    AND re your reply to JD Sue, there’s
    no constitutional question to be considered here. If they accept the appeal (though untimely) the only question is did the judge rule properly that a proper search was done. She did.

    As to the “motion” to reconsider, reopen, recuse, the denial was proper for all the reasons Judge Hollander laid out, and more. And she cited law.

    A

  76. avatar
    Northland10 July 31, 2014 at 9:22 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490, 403 U.S. App. D.C. 350, 194 LRRM 3089 (D.C. Cir. 2013) [2013 BL 20942]

    It is a well-settled principle of constitutional adjudication that courts “will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.” Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 , 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring); see also Spector Motor Serv., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101 , 105 (1944); United States v. Waksberg, 112 F.3d 1225 , 1227 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

    Your citation says the exact opposite of what you are claiming. The full paragraph reads

    Before we can even consider the constitutional issues, however, we must first rule on statutory objections to the Board’s order raised by Noel Canning. It is a well-settled principle of constitutional adjudication that courts “will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.” Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring); see also Spector Motor Serv., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101 (1944); United States v. Waksberg, 112 F.3d 1225, 1227 (D.C.Cir.1997). We must therefore decide whether Noel Canning is entitled to relief on the basis of its nonconstitutional arguments before addressing the constitutional question. Noel Canning raises two statutory arguments. First, it contends that the ALJ’s conclusion that the parties in fact reached an agreement at their final negotiation session is not supported by substantial evidence. Second, it argues that even if such an agreement were reached, it is unenforceable under Washington law. We address each argument in turn.

    It says quite simply that statutory objections are settled first. The first case against the line-item veto was tossed due to lack of standing. There was a Constitutional issue but it could not be dealt with until there was a plaintiff with standing and an injury that could be relieved by the court.

  77. avatar
    John Reilly July 31, 2014 at 9:23 am #

    Sven is a racist troll.

    The issue of whether Pres. Obama is eligible to be President has been decided twice by the Congress precisely as described in the Constitution. Sven refuses, absolutely refuses, to deal with that fact. He refuses to discuss the established method of selecting presidents. He hates our Constitution.

    While judges in this country, unlike judges under the rocks where Sven lives, do not investigate anything, if a judge or anyone else was the slightest bit curious they could check out the news that Congress twice determined that Pres. Obama was properly selected by the Electors. They could check out that not a single member of Congress objected to this determination. Not a single one. Congress has not been in unanimous agreement on anything else, but on that point Congress agreed. Unanimously. The curious citizen could check out that the Chief Justice has sworn Pres. Obama in 4 times. Thus, the only way now to remove Pres. Obama is by impeachment and conviction. Since no member of the House has introduced articles of impeachment, and conviction in any event appears impossible in the Senate, it is not going to happen. And then the judge or anyone else would know that Pres. Obama is the president, the ravings of deranged lunatics to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The idea that the country must come to a halt because some nut suggests for the umpteenth time that Pres. Obama was not eligible until that judge conducts yet another investigation has no support in any case or law.

    The idea that the appointments clause was violated is equally nutty. When Judge Hollander was appointed, for example, not a single member of the Senate challenged her appointment on the grounds that the president was not eligible. Such a challenge would have been nutty, and not authorized by the Constitution, but, in any event, not a single Senator raised any such objection.

    Sven just likes trashing our Constitution. Why? He hates the idea that a Black man lives in the White House. He was, is and will always be a racist troll.

  78. avatar
    realist July 31, 2014 at 9:32 am #

    Northland10: Your citation says the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

    Which is very typical of birthers and birther “lawyers”.

  79. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 31, 2014 at 10:09 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490, 403 U.S. App. D.C. 350, 194 LRRM 3089 (D.C. Cir. 2013) [2013 BL 20942]; Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 , 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring); see also Spector Motor Serv., Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101 , 105 (1944); United States v. Waksberg, 112 F.3d 1225 , 1227 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

    —-
    Your cites do not in any way support your assertion that “Judge Hollander cannot use … lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the court as an excuse not to investigate President Obama’s eligibility.”

  80. avatar
    Arthur July 31, 2014 at 10:38 am #

    John Reilly: Sven just likes trashing our Constitution. Why? He hates the idea that a Black man lives in the White House. He was, is and will always be a racist troll.

    OK, he’s a racist troll, but why does he have to be sooooooo BORING. Forgive me for saying so, but the comment section of this blog has come to resemble the minutes the Peoria Penny-farthing Appreciation Society. If we’re going to have a troll, couldn’t he be provocative? Couldn’t someone mosey over to B.R. and invite some of their loonier trolls to trouble our bridge?

  81. avatar
    RanTalbott July 31, 2014 at 10:43 am #

    J.D. Sue: Your cites do not in any way support your assertion

    “Nyah, nyah: made ya look!”

    There are times when I wonder whether there might be some time-wasting method to the birfoons’ madness of citing sources that are irrelevant to, or even contradict, their claims.

    Then I remember that 95% of them can’t beat their dogs at checkers, and another 4.99% can’t do so consistently. And I realize that the URLs are just magic incantations that they heard would help keep the obots at bay.

    I’m slightly surprised that Sven’s cites are even real: I imagined a Chevy Chase-like movie character citing a statute that turns out to be about railroad rights of way in arguing a motion to grant bail to his parody pot dealer client.

  82. avatar
    Rickey July 31, 2014 at 11:06 am #

    realist: .

    And Judge Hollander never said or even intimated such re the appointments clause.
    .

    Sven is so tone deaf that he fails to recognize that the entire paragraph written by Judge Hollander is dripping with sarcasm. It’s her version of “if pigs could fly.”

  83. avatar
    Arthur July 31, 2014 at 11:20 am #

    Rickey: Sven is so tone deaf that he fails to recognize that the entire paragraph written by Judge Hollander is dripping with sarcasm. It’s her version of “if pigs could fly.”

    Based on birthers long established inability to understand sarcasm, I’d say a good deal of them suffer from Autism.

  84. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 31, 2014 at 11:30 am #

    RanTalbott: “Nyah, nyah: made ya look!”

    There are times when I wonder whether there might be some time-wasting method to the birfoons’ madness of citing sources that are irrelevant to, or even contradict, their claims.

    —–
    Indeed, he made me look. Lucky I like reading case law. Besides, I asked him for cites and, apparently, these are the best he has. Which proved my point–he has nothing.

  85. avatar
    JoZeppy July 31, 2014 at 11:34 am #

    SvenMagnussen: You need to explain de novo because some here do not believe a judicial panel in the Circuit Court should investigate a Constitutional question presented with a case that lacks controversy or jurisdiction in the District Court.

    Obviously de novo does need to be explained to you, because you seem to think it means the Circuit Court can look at anything it wants. De novo simply means the appeals court does not have to give the lower courts opinions any weight. This usually applies to a courts legal conclusions, as an appelate court is free to make it’s own legal conclusions without giving defference to what the trial court held. Conversely, a trial court’s findings of fact are given defference, and in order to overturn a finding of fact you must show the court’s finding was clearly errouneous. It does not mean the Circuit Court can investigate a constitutional question presented with a case that lacks controversy or jurisdiction. Quite the opposite. It still can’t. In fact it is Constitutionally prohibited from doing that. If there is no case or controversy, the constitution specifically prohibits the federal courts from examining the issue. Full stop. End of story. Likewise, if the court doesn’t have jurisidiction, by definition of the word jurisdiction, the court can’t rule on it. It quite literally is powerless to do so. If the lower court held that it didn’t have jurisidiction, or there was no controversey or jurisdiction, and that issue was before the appeals court, the most the appeals court could do is find there was controversy or jurisidiction, than remand the case to the lower court. The Circuit Court certainly wouldn’t investigate anything (no court investigates anything), nor would it consider any evidence that was not before the trial court. You generally are not permitted to present any new evidence at an appeal.

    SvenMagnussen: And Judge Hollander doesn’t think it’s a big deal if a federal judge was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause. Ha Ha Ha!

    Judge Hollander simply refused to give any weight to a scenario based on a very tenious string of implausible hypotheticals that don’t have any basis in reality.

  86. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 31, 2014 at 12:17 pm #

    Someone needs to investigate whether or not Sven is a pedophile. Even though there is not one scrap of evidence (admissible or otherwise) that he is, or even grounds for reasonable suspicion, someone should check it out just in case. Look into his background, examine his emails, see what’s on his hard drive, investigate his friends…

    How’s that sound, Benedict Magnussen?

  87. avatar
    J.D. Sue July 31, 2014 at 12:20 pm #

    JoZeppy: Likewise, if the court doesn’t have jurisidiction, by definition of the word jurisdiction, the court can’t rule on it. It quite literally is powerless to do so.

    —-
    And yet, incredibly, Sven is arguing that the Judge’s oath to uphold the Constitution requires the Judge to exercise jurisdiction that the Constitution does not confer upon the courts. How convoluted can he be?! It reminds me of the birther argument that the Military’s oath to protect and defend the Constitution requires it to engage in a military coup…. Huh?!

  88. avatar
    BillTheCat July 31, 2014 at 12:24 pm #

    John Reilly: Birthers are racist trolls. Birthers just like trashing our Constitution. Why? They hate the idea that a Black man lives in the White House. They were, are and will always be racist trolls.

    Fixed, as this applies to ALL birthers. ALL OF THEM.

  89. avatar
    The European July 31, 2014 at 12:30 pm #

    Thomas Brown:
    Someone needs to investigate whether or not Sven is a pedophile.Even though there is not one scrap of evidence (admissible or otherwise) that he is, or even grounds for reasonable suspicion, someone should check it out just in case.Look into his background, examine his emails, see what’s on his hard drive, investigate his friends…

    How’s that sound, Benedict Magnussen?

    Well, Mr. Magnussen lives in Sweden. Everybody knows that Sweden is full of pedophiles. Adults and kids go nekkid into the Sauna – together, men, women, girls and boys. Pedophiles paradise!

    I take bets that this is exact the reason why Col. Magnussen moved to Sweden (and their single payer health care system, of course).

  90. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 31, 2014 at 12:59 pm #

    Sven can spell, properly capitalize and compose a grammatically correct (if nonsensical) sentence. Aside from that, his posts are substantively no different from john’s, long on racist and seditious fantasies, short on facts.

  91. avatar
    alg July 31, 2014 at 3:56 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: “You need to explain de novo because some here do not believe a judicial panel in the Circuit Court should investigate a Constitutional question presented with a case that lacks controversy or jurisdiction in the District Court.”

    Sven,

    Obama isn’t even a defendant in this case. There is no “Constitutional queston” before the court. The case is not about Obama’s eligibility. It’s an FOIA claim. The only question before the Court is whether or not the SSA complied with federal regulations for disclosure of public records. The Court found that it did. End of story.

    By the way, is it true that Sven Magnussen is a pedophile? I see it was suggested here earlier so that must be true. We don’t no stinkin’ evidence to prove it. We just have to say it’s so and it is so.

  92. avatar
    Thomas Brown July 31, 2014 at 4:26 pm #

    Let’s not jump (for Sven, “yump”) to conclusions. He may be a kid-toucher; we just don’t know. But using Sven’s reasoning we need only assert that he MAY be a pedophile in order to then repeatedly insist that some Authority mount the kind of unconstitutional, privacy-violating, full-scale investigation into whether or not he is the worst sort of pervert to which he advocates subjecting our 44th President.

    And Benedict Magnussen would never object to such an investigation… unless, of course, he has something to hide.

  93. avatar
    Bonsall Obot July 31, 2014 at 4:38 pm #

    The news that Sven is a pedophile is shocking, to say the least; however, since he demands a legal standard of verdict first, investigation to follow, we have no choice but to grant his wish and consider him guilty of this heinous crime.

  94. avatar
    SvenMagnussen July 31, 2014 at 8:19 pm #

    Northland10: Your citation says the exact opposite of what you are claiming.The full paragraph reads

    It says quite simply that statutory objections are settled first.The first case against the line-item veto was tossed due to lack of standing.There was a Constitutional issue but it could not be dealt with until there was a plaintiff with standing and an injury that could be relieved by the court.

    Noel Canning v. NRLB is a recent case where Noel Canning lost their case before the NRLB board. Noel Canning appealed the board’s decision and raised a Constitutional question concerning the 3 board members appointed to the NRLB by President Obama during a time he claimed the Senate was in recess.

    The DC Circuit affirmed the NRLB decision because Noel Canning clearly lost their case. After that, the DC Circuit examined the Constitutional questions (two questions addressed even though Noel Canning only raised one Constitutional question). The cases I cited earlier are the cases cited by the DC Circuit to support the Circuit court’s argument is could answer one Constitutional question asked and one Constitutional question not asked after the NRLB board correctly ruled against Noel Canning.

    The Constitutional question asked by Noel Canning: Were the appointments to the board made during the time President Obama claimed the Senate was in recess and the Senate claimed they were not in recess a violation of the Appointments Clause?

    The Constitutional question not asked but answered because the Circuit court thought it was an important Constitutional question that should be addressed was: Does the NRLB board have jurisdiction to hear cases and controversies when 3 of the 5 members of the board are appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause?

    The Circuit Court will review Orly’s case de novo, if she appeals, to determine if the District Court had jurisdiction after an allegation was made President Obama was ineligible even though that was not the case or controversy. Judge Hollander was appointed by Obama. If Obama is found to be ineligible, everything Judge Hollander has done in her official capacity as a federal judge is automatically voided. Further, US Attorney General Holder the U.S. Attorney for MD, Mid-Atlantic region were appointed by Obama. If Obama is ineligible, then everything they have done in their official capacities is voided. The Assistant U.S. Attorney who moved Judge Hollander to dismiss the case lacks authority to move the federal court to do anything in his official capacity if Obama is found to be ineligible.

    Further, if Obama is found to be ineligible, Judge Hollander, SSA Commissioner Colvin, US Atty General Holder, US Attorney for MD, Mid-Atlantic region and the Asst Attorney General could be sued by Orly and held professionally and personally liable for adversely impacting her First Amendment right to seek a redress of grievances in the District Court after appointment by an ineligible President or appearing on behalf of an appointee of an ineligible President.

    There is not statute of limitations on violations of the Constitution. After the Circuit court remands with instructions to examine Obama’s complete SSN records, Obama will be found ineligible and Orly can go back and file suit to recover losses from other Judges who have improperly dismissed her cases and be held professionally and personally liable. Judge do not have immunity for Constitutional violations when an ineligible President is in office

  95. avatar
    realist July 31, 2014 at 8:25 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Noel Canning v. NRLB is a recent case where Noel Canning lost their case before the NRLB board. Noel Canning appealed the board’s decision raised a Constitutional question concerning 3 board members appointed to the NRLB by President Obama during a time he claimed the Senate was in recess.

    The DC Circuit affirmed the NRLB decision because Noel Canning clearly lost their case. After that, theDC Circuit examined the Constitutional questions (two, even though Noel Canning only raised one Constitutional question). The cases I cited earlier are the cases cited by the DC Circuit to support the Circuit court’s argument is could answer one Constitutional question asked and one Constitutional question not asked after the NRLB board correctly ruled against appellant.

    The Constitutional question asked by Noel Canning: Were the appointments to the board made during the time President Obama claimed the Senate was in recess and the Senate claimed they were not in recess a violation of the Appointments Clause.

    The Constitutional question not asked but answered because the Circuit court thought it was an important Constitutional question that should be addressed was: Does the NRLB board have jurisdiction to hear cases and controversies when 3 of the 5 members of the board are appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause.

    The Circuit Court will review Orly’s case de novo, if she appeals, to determine if the District Court had jurisdiction after an allegation was made President Obama was ineligible even though that was not the case or controversy. Judge Hollander was appointed by Obama. If Obama is found to be ineligible, everything Judge Hollander has done in her official capacity as a federal judge is automatically voided. Further, US Attorney General Holder the U.S. Attorney for MD, Mid-Atlantic region were appointed by Obama. If Obama is ineligible, then everything they have done in their official capacities is voided. The Assistant U.S. Attorney who moved Judge Hollander to dismiss the case lacks authority to move the federal court to do anything in his official capacity if Obama is found to be ineligible.

    Further, if Obama is found to be ineligible, Judge Hollander, SSA Commissioner Colvin, US Atty General Holder, US Attorney for MD, Mid-Atlantic region and the Asst Attorney General could be sued by Orly and held professionally and personally liable for adversely impacting her First Amendment right to seek a redress of grievances in the District Court after appointment by an ineligible President or appearing on behalf of an appointee of an ineligible President.

    There is not statute of limitations on violations of the Constitution. After the Circuit court remands with instructions to examine Obama’s complete SSN records, Obama will be found ineligible and Orly can go back and file suit to recover losses from other Judges who have improperly dismissed her cases and be held professionally and personally liable. Judge do not have immunity for Constitutional violations when an ineligible President is in office

    Except for very few words concerning the holding (you didn’t quite get it) everything you say in that post is complete bull.

    You can continue to say all that garbage all you wish and you’re still wrong.

    That will be proven out in a few months.

    And why do you keep saying if she appeals. You’ve been told repeatedly that she’s filed her Notice of Appeal.

  96. avatar
    John Reilly August 1, 2014 at 2:30 am #

    Sven is a racist troll.

    He still refuses to address what the Constitution actually says. He reads my posts, but for years has refused to address them. Years.

    And his latest post, about the magic reset button, is simply deluded. The idea that Dr. Taitz can sue judges, government attorneys, etc., is total nonsense.

    But Sven, if you don’t think it is nonsense, why don’t you sue a judge or two. Let us know how that turns out.

  97. avatar
    The Magic M August 1, 2014 at 3:55 am #

    SvenMagnussen: And Judge Hollander doesn’t think it’s a big deal if a federal judge was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause.

    Again you repeat that nonsense while failing to address my response to the first time you made that claim.

    The Appointments Clause has nothing to do with the eligibility of the President and vice versa. Because of the de facto officer doctrine, all actions by an ineligible President stand. This elementarily includes his appointments. The Appointments Clause means that the *appointments* may not be in violation of the Constitution, not the appointer or the appointee.

    Besides, I wonder why you never ask the question what consequences your argument would have for the birther claim that Chester Arthur was also ineligible. Which of his Presidential actions – which, by your theory, were all null and void – would have consequences until this day? How many rulings are void because they’re based on SCOTUS rulings where at least one Arthur appointee was present? Did you ever ask that question? And if so, why not? Because Arthur was white?

  98. avatar
    Suranis August 2, 2014 at 3:29 pm #

    Svens refusal to acknowledge the allegations that he feels little girls bicycle saddles is troubling. If the allegations are false why not come out and say so. Why not give the easy documentary proof (such as video of him getting excited at the sight of a non-minor female) to shut up his critics. Instead he engaged in Alynskyite detraction tactics, which to those of us who are experienced psychological watchers scream that he has something to hide.

    To see more, please buy my new book “Wanker; the roots of Sven’s rage.”

  99. avatar
    Thomas Brown August 2, 2014 at 9:49 pm #

    I’m pretty sure Sven rubs little boys’ bicycle seats and sniffs little girls’. Unless, you know, he can prove that he doesn’t. Oh, and we get to decide whether or not his evidence is valid.

  100. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 3, 2014 at 6:19 am #

    The Magic M: Again you repeat that nonsense while failing to address my response to the first time you made that claim.

    The Appointments Clause has nothing to do with the eligibility of the President and vice versa. Because of the de facto officer doctrine, all actions by an ineligible President stand. This elementarily includes his appointments. The Appointments Clause means that the *appointments* may not be in violation of the Constitution, not the appointer or the appointee.

    Besides, I wonder why you never ask the question what consequences your argument would have for the birther claim that Chester Arthur was also ineligible. Which of his Presidential actions – which, by your theory, were all null and void – would have consequences until this day? How many rulings are void because they’re based on SCOTUS rulings where at least one Arthur appointee was present? Did you ever ask that question? And if so, why not? Because Arthur was white?

    An ineligible President lacks Constitutional authority to make appointments. Consequently, appointments made by an ineligible President lack Constitutional authority.

    The de facto officer doctrine applies to “statutory technical defects.” The U.S. Constitution is not a statute. Presidential ineligibility is a Constitutional defect. Appointments made by an ineligible President are Constitutional defects. Once a violation of the Constitution occurs, no person, entity, government body, or anything else can ratify the violation as Constitutional.

    The Constitution may be amended, but it cannot be amended to retroactively effect prior unconstitutional acts. So, a super majority of the States could ratify an amendment to the Constitution to define the Eligibility Clause to include naturalized citizens, but Obama’s Presidency will never be ratified as Constitutional. Obama’s appointees can never be ratified as Constitutional. Any federal judge appointed by Obama is forever tainted as a judicial officer who cannot be trusted to defend and protect the Constitution. Any Executive branch officer appointed by Obama to represent the United States is forever tainted as an Executive branch officer who cannot be trusted to defend and protect the Constitution. Since these U.S. federal officers support Obama and not the Constitution, they are professionally and personally liable to the people, like Orly, who have suffered the consequences of their unconstitutional acts.

    SSA Commissioner Colvin, Judge Hollander and the AUSA who filed a motion to dismiss are professionally and personally liable to Orly for their unconstitutional acts. Their careers as government servants will soon be over and they will never be reinstated because they supported Obama and not the Constitution.

  101. avatar
    realist August 3, 2014 at 7:11 am #

    SvenMagnussen: An ineligible President lacks Constitutional authority to make appointments. Consequently, appointments made by an ineligible President lack Constitutional authority.

    The de facto officer doctrine applies to “statutory technical defects.” The U.S. Constitution is not a statute. Presidential ineligibility is a Constitutional defect. Appointments made by an ineligible President are Constitutional defects. Once a violation of the Constitution occurs, no person, entity, government body, or anything else can ratify the violation as Constitutional.

    I love it when birthers just make stuff up. Sounds good, Sven (ala Apuzzo) but is just baloney. All of it.

    And most especially your last comment related to Colving, the judge and the AUSA. Complete bull.

    De Facto Officer refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of third persons are concerned, when done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.

    The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

    The following is case law defining the term De Facto Officer. “An officer de facto is one whose acts, though not those of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice, will hold valid so far as they involve the interests of the public and third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised:

    First, without a known appointment or election, but under such circumstances of reputation or acquiescence as were calculated to induce people, without inquiry, to submit to or invoke his action, supposing him to be the officer he assumed to be;

    Second, under color of a known and valid appointment or election, but where the officer had failed to conform to some precedent requirement or condition, as to take an oath, give a bond, or the like;

    Third, under color of a known election or appointment, void because the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of power, or defect being unknown to the public;

    Fourth, under color of an election or appointment by or pursuant to a public unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such”. [Jersey City v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 57 N.J. Super. 13, 27 (App. Div. 1959)]

  102. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 3, 2014 at 7:12 am #

    Stamp your feet and cross your arms when you say that, son, if you want to throw a proper tantrum.

  103. avatar
    Sef August 3, 2014 at 7:26 am #

    realist: [Jersey City v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 57 N.J. Super. 13, 27 (App. Div. 1959)]

    It would be nice if someone can find a similar ruling in the Holly Bibble for the CLGJ-type folks. (I can’t look for fear of burning my fingers.)

  104. avatar
    Atticus Finch August 3, 2014 at 10:43 am #

    SvenMagnussen: An ineligible President lacks Constitutional authority to make appointments. Consequently, appointments made by an ineligible President lack Constitutional authority.

    The de facto officer doctrine applies to “statutory technical defects.” The U.S. Constitution is not a statute. Presidential ineligibility is a Constitutional defect. Appointments made by an ineligible President are Constitutional defects. Once a violation of the Constitution occurs, no person, entity, government body, or anything else can ratify the violation as Constitutional.

    The de facto officer doctrine applies to “statutory technical defects.?

    Wrong.

    Courts have held under the de facto officer doctrine that acts and laws signed by persons acting in the capacity of their title are valid even if the person’s appointment or election to the office is legally deficient.

    The court in Hamilton v. Roehrich, 628 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Mn, 2009), articulated the rationale for this doctrine:

    The de facto officer doctrine “`confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.'” Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69, 77, 123 S.Ct. 2130, 156 L.Ed.2d 64 (2003), quoting Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 180, 115 S.Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136 (1995). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” Ryder v. United States, supra at 180, 115 S.Ct. 2031 [quotations and citations omitted]; see also, Hussey v. Smith, 99 U.S. 20, 24, 25 L.Ed. 314 (1878)(“The acts of such officers are held to be valid because the public good requires it,” and “[a] different rule would be a source of serious and lasting evils.”); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 650 F.2d 14, 17 (2nd Cir.1981)(“The de facto officer doctrine was developed to protect the public from the chaos and uncertainty that would ensue if actions taken by individuals apparently occupying government offices could later be invalidated by exposing defects in the officials’ titles.”). “The doctrine has generally been applied to individuals who are in possession of an office, are performing the duties of the office, and who maintain an appearance of right to the office.” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., supra at 17, citing Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U.S. 302, 323, 22 S.Ct. 327, 46 L.Ed. 552 (1902)

    The Supreme Court in Ryder v. United States , 515 U.S. 177 (1995 stated:

    ” [In] Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), [ ] plaintiffs challenged the appointment of the Federal Election Commission members on separation of powers grounds. The Court agreed with them and held that the appointment of four members of the Commission by Congress, rather than the President, violated the Appointments Clause. It nonetheless quite summarily held that the “past acts of the Commission are therefore accorded de facto validity.” Id., at 142. We cited as authority for this determination Connor v. Williams, 404 U.S. 549, 550-551 (1972), in which we held that legislative acts performed by legislators held to have been elected in accordance with an unconstitutional apportionment were not therefore void.”

    As such, all of President Obama’s appointments including judicial appointments are valid.

  105. avatar
    John Reilly August 3, 2014 at 12:44 pm #

    Sven, the racist troll, is back.

    Sven, once again, refuses to discuss the actual provisions of the Constitution about this issue. Pres. Obama is the President, and will remain so until January 2017 unless he is impeached and convicted. The Founding Fathers insulated the office of President (and other high officers) from precisely the sort of racist trolls Sven represents.

    I particularly liked Sven’s idea quoted below, that Judge Hollander is “professionally” liable to Dr. Taitz. What that means, I do not know, but I would sure like to see Dr. Taitz file a lawsuit alleging someone is “professionally liable” to her. We had an incident reported here in the papers of a Michigan judge who conducted an affair with the wife in a divorce case. The husband sued, and lost, because in this country, unlike Moldova and the rock under which Sven lives, you can’t sue judges.

    SvenMagnussen: SSA Commissioner Colvin, Judge Hollander and the AUSA who filed a motion to dismiss are professionally and personally liable to Orly for their unconstitutional acts. Their careers as government servants will soon be over and they will never be reinstated because they supported Obama and not the Constitution.

  106. avatar
    James M August 3, 2014 at 9:18 pm #

    John Reilly: Sven, once again, refuses to discuss the actual provisions of the Constitution about this issue. Pres. Obama is the President, and will remain so until January 2017 unless he is impeached and convicted.

    Well, he could also die, and that’s what the folks at BR seem to be counting on, judging from the general theme of that website.

  107. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 3, 2014 at 10:11 pm #

    Atticus Finch: The de facto officer doctrine applies to “statutory technical defects.?

    Wrong.

    Courts have held under the de facto officer doctrine that acts and laws signed by persons acting in the capacity of their title are valid even if the person’s appointment or election to the office is legally deficient.

    The court in Hamilton v. Roehrich, 628 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Mn, 2009), articulated the rationale for this doctrine:

    The de facto officer doctrine “`confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.’” Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69, 77, 123 S.Ct. 2130, 156 L.Ed.2d 64 (2003), quoting Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 180, 115 S.Ct. 2031, 132 L.Ed.2d 136 (1995). “The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” Ryder v. United States, supra at 180, 115 S.Ct. 2031 [quotations and citations omitted]; see also, Hussey v. Smith, 99 U.S. 20, 24, 25 L.Ed. 314 (1878)(“The acts of such officers are held to be valid because the public good requires it,” and “[a] different rule would be a source of serious and lasting evils.”); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 650 F.2d 14, 17 (2nd Cir.1981)(“The de facto officer doctrine was developed to protect the public from the chaos and uncertainty that would ensue if actions taken by individuals apparently occupying government offices could later be invalidated by exposing defects in the officials’ titles.”). “The doctrine has generally been applied to individuals who are in possession of an office, are performing the duties of the office, and who maintain an appearance of right to the office.” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., supra at 17, citing Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 U.S. 302, 323, 22 S.Ct. 327, 46 L.Ed. 552 (1902)

    The Supreme Court in Ryder v. United States , 515 U.S. 177 (1995 stated:

    ” [In] Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), [ ] plaintiffs challenged the appointment of the Federal Election Commission members on separation of powers grounds. The Court agreed with them and held that the appointment of four members of the Commission by Congress, rather than the President, violated the Appointments Clause. It nonetheless quite summarily held that the “past acts of the Commission are therefore accorded de facto validity.” Id., at 142. We cited as authority for this determination Connor v. Williams, 404 U.S. 549, 550-551 (1972), in which we held that legislative acts performed by legislators held to have been elected in accordance with an unconstitutional apportionment were not therefore void.”

    As such, all of President Obama’s appointments including judicial appointments are valid.

    In Buckley v. Valeo:

    One part of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 described the method of making appointments to the FEC board. President Ford vetoed it. SCOTUS rule that a portion of the FEC Act of 1974 which described making appointments to the FEC Board exclusive of the President was a statutory-technical defect because it violated the Separation of Powers doctrine. SCOTUS ruled the portion of the FEC Act of 1974 with respect to appointments could be amended and become constitutional if the President nominated the FEC Board members, the Senate provided advice and consent and then the President would make the appointment.

    Since the FEC Act of 1974 was defect due to the way the statute was written, SCOTUS ruled the de facto officer doctrine applied to prior acts because the statute could be amended and be found constitutional.

    Ryder and Nguyen:

    Judges in each of these cases were found to have exercised their authority after a violation of the Appointments Clause. In Ryder, petitioner complained about one judge on a three judge panel, pre-trial, and was ignored. The final decision by the panel judge was voided by SCOTUS even though two of the judges on the three judge panel were validly appointed. The appeals court decision was voided. In Nguyen, the petitioner did not complain about an appointment of one judge on a three judge panel until the case reached the Supreme Court. SCOTUS found one of the judge’s appointment on a three judge panel was invalid and voided the panels decision.

    In the recent case of NRLB v. Noel Canning, the NRLB Act requires a quorum of board members be present and vote before a final decision can be reached. After Buckley, the NRLB Act makes it clear the President appoints all members to the NRLB board after advice and consent of the Senate.

    Everyone, except Noel Canning, agrees they lost their case before the NRLB. board. But, Noel Canning made an Appointments Clause challenge to 3 members of the NRLB board appointed by Obama during a Senate Recess. Noel Canning and the Senate claimed the Senate was not in recess with Obama made the appointments. Obama claimed the Senate was in recess and made the appointments.

    The DC Circuit agreed with NRLB that Noel Canning lost their case, but the Appointments Clause challenge was a Constitutional Question and the appeals court should pass on Constitutional Questions even though the case can be disposed of by affirming the NRLB’s decision. The DC Circuit held the Senate was not in recess and ruled the Appointment invalidated. The Constitution had been violated and it was not a statutory technical defect that could be corrected with an amendment to the legislation. All decisions made by the NRLB board with those three members with invalid appointments participating are voided. SCOTUS affirmed.

    Buckley … statutory technical defect that could be corrected with an amendment to the legislation.

    Ryder … petitioner complained three judge panel had an invalid appointee on the panel and was ignored. SCOTUS voided their ruling.

    Nguyen … petitioner didn’t complain about invalid appointment of one judge on a three judge panel until the case reached the Supreme court. SCOTUS, 9-0, voided the three judge panel decision.

    recent case of NRLB v. Noel Canning …many Presidents have made recess appointments without any problems. The first black president makes a recess appointment and all h_ll breaks loose. All decisions with the three board members appointed to the NRLB during a recess ruled invalid by SCOTUS, 9-0.

    Statutory technical violations of the Constitution can be corrected. SCOTUS will uphold decisions of appointees if it was due to a statutory technical violation that can be amended AND the person effected by the statutory technical violation did not complain in a timely manner to ensure a smooth functioning government.

    Appointments made by an ineligible President can never be corrected. Amendments to the Constitution are not retroactive. Violations of the Constitution do not have a statute of limitations.

  108. avatar
    JayHG August 3, 2014 at 11:24 pm #

    Sven said: “An ineligible President lacks Constitutional authority to make appointments. Consequently, appointments made by an ineligible President lack Constitutional authority.”

    Listen you idiot bigoted birther, prove President Obama is an ineligible president and then we’ll discuss the rest of your bullshit nonsense….thank you.

  109. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 4, 2014 at 4:57 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Their careers as government servants will soon be over

    Any day now!

  110. avatar
    John Reilly August 4, 2014 at 9:26 am #

    Wow. A lengthy reply by Sven, citing cases and such.

    Ignoring, once again, what the Constitution says.

  111. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 4, 2014 at 10:19 am #

    Sven, you’re so wrong, so often, that I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if you’re not allowed to use the bathroom without adult supervision, in case you accidentally drown.

  112. avatar
    Keith August 4, 2014 at 11:16 am #

    SvenMagnussen: In Buckley v. Valeo: … excessive word salad …

    WTF is wrong with you? Can you please read and make an attempt to understand the responses you are receiving? And you don’t need to quote the entire rebuttal in order to respond to the rebuttal. And you don’t need to repeat the original assertions over and over again. You made several assertions; those assertions were rebutted, please respond to the rebuttal, don’t just repeat the assertions again and again. That is not argument, nor discussion; it is trolling.

    DISCLAIMER: IANAL, but I CAN read.

    I take it that YANAL either, but I challenge you to actually read the rulings you cite. I expect that a real lawyer can probably find lots of inaccuracies in my arguments below, but you won’t win any discussion by just repeating the same incoherent interpretation you have already repeated several times.

    1) “NRLB v Canning” has nothing to do with Presidential eligibility; and has no impact on the ‘de facto officer’ doctrine as it might (in your fantasies) affect an ineligible President. It has to do with an incorrect appointment process.

    1a)The appointments were not invalid because the President is ineligible in any way; they were invalid because the Senate simply refused to process them and went on vacation without technically going into recess. The President then argued that the Senate really was in recess, and made temporary appointments to fill the voids which he is legally entitled to do when Senate is in recess. The Senate challenged the President’s interpretation and won.

    1b) Furthermore, the appointments were not invalid just because the Senate was not technically in recess; they were fundamentally invalid because the vacancies did not occur during a recess which must be the case for temporary recess appointments.

    1c) The entire episode was a test case; one intended to light a fire under the Senate to process these appointments in a timely fashion.

    1d) The case has wide ranging effects on thousands of NRLB cases, going back decades, not just during this episode; the NRLB has had many periods when a quorum was missing and the temporary appointments were handled incorrectly. The bounds of the problem has not yet been measured; however it is clear that the ‘de facto’ officer doctrine will insulate some (but not all) cases from invalidation.

    1e) NRLB v Canning has no application to resolving the problem of what to do about the actions of a hypothetically ineligible President because the President is not appointed ‘with the advice and consent of the Senate’; the Presidency is an elected Constitutional office.

    2) Buckley v. Valeo has nothing to do with Presidential eligibility; and has no impact on the ‘de facto officer’ doctrine as it might (in your fantasies) affect an ineligible President.

    2a) Buckley v. Valeo was a challenge to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The entire act was challenged, but only parts were struck down. One of the parts that was struck down was the process for determining the makeup of the Commission.

    2b) The act was written in such a way that certain Congressional officers were automatically ex officio members of the Commission and others were appointed by the House and still others by the Senate. SCOTUS found this an unconstitutional process – all officers must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. That does not disallow those people from being appointed; it just requires a different appointment process.

    2c) The de facto officer doctrine applied in the case of the FEC. The appointment process could be easily fixed.

    2d) Buckley v. Valeo has no application to resolving the problem of what to do about the actions of a hypothetically ineligible President because the President is not appointed by an unConstitutional process defined in a poorly written statute nor is the President appointed ‘with the advice and consent of the Senate’; the Presidency is an elected Constitutional office.

    3) Ryder v United States and Nguyen v United States have nothing to do with Presidential eligibility; and have no impact on the ‘de facto officer’ doctrine as it might (in your fantasies) affect an ineligible President.

    3a) Both of these cases involved a panel of judges that was composed incorrectly. It was NOT the individuals on the the panel that were ineligible for an office.

    3b) In Ryder, a 3 judge panel for a court-martial included two civilians appointed by the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation. The judges all needed to be military officers appointed by the President, a Department head, or another Court of Law. SCOTUS found that the fundamental issue wasn’t that the individual judges acting in good faith, but that the entire panel was formed incorrectly. Statutes, Military rules, and Supreme Court precedence provided definitions about how Courts-martial should be convened to ensure that the rights of the accused are maintained. A 3 judge panel is not a ‘de facto’ officer when it is incorrectly convened, even if the problem is unknown to the individual judges. The de facto officer doctrine applies to the acts of individuals, not to multi-member panels.

    3c) In Nguyen, an appeals panel was made up of two Article III judges and one Article IV judge. None of the judges were were ineligible for their position; however the appeals panel needed to comprise three Article II judges. There is no question of an individual acting as an officer under the mistaken belief that he/she is eligible – all judges were eligible for their office; rather it is failure to honor the statutory definition of how the appeals panel members should be determined. The decision relied, in part, on Ryder to find that de facto officer doctrine does not apply.

    4) In the (absurdly hypothetical) case of an ineligible President, the Constitution is clear about how the Government in general and the Executive in particular continue operate.

    4a) The President, once sworn in to office, IS the President until legally removed from office. Period.

    4b) There are 4 ways a President can be legally removed from office: expiration of term, resignation, death or impairment (removal due to impairment is temporary; but temporary could last until expiration of term), and impeachment. Were the President found to be ineligible, resignation is the most likely response, but whatever. The Vice President would become President to fill out the term; McCain and Romney have no claim.

    4c) The Presidency is not a multi-member panel. The President is not appointed. The President is elected by the Electoral College and the Election is confirmed by Congress as defined in the Constitution.

    4d) The President meets the definition of an ‘officer’ in the context of the de Facto officer doctrine, without argument.

    The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

    4e) There is no magic reset button. The acts of a President are the valid, even if it is later discovered that the President is ineligible.

    4f) President Obama will always be the 44th President of the United States, even if he is somehow found to be ineligible. The acts that he signed in to law will not magically become unsigned; executive orders will remain in force (until a subsequent President alters them).

  113. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 4, 2014 at 1:02 pm #

    Keith:

    I take it that YANAL either,

    Sven is an elderly, undistinguished slip-and-fall/DUI/matrimonial attorney in Missouri. That is to say, he is a lawyer in the same sense that Orly and Mario are lawyers: admitted to the bar, but very bad at their jobs.

    Given that he has never won a significant case and seems to misunderstand the most basic points of the law, it’s naturally easy to assume he is not a lawyer; sadly, the truth is much more depressing.

  114. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 4, 2014 at 2:19 pm #

    It will be interesting (?) to see what Orly does when the 4th circuit panel of judges on her appeal inevitably includes at least one Obama appointee…

  115. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 4, 2014 at 2:22 pm #

    J.D. Sue:
    It will be interesting (?) to see what Orly does when the 4th circuit panel of judges on her appeal inevitably includes at least one Obama appointee…

    INPEACH!!!

  116. avatar
    predicto August 4, 2014 at 5:18 pm #

    As an actual constitutional attorney with 26 years of experience, I just want to thank Sven Magnussen for all his postings. They are quite hilariously wrong in so many ways that they never fail to entertain.

    He is the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. He can’t even comprehend why he is wrong.

  117. avatar
    Paper August 6, 2014 at 12:28 am #

    The vacancy can occur any time, including during a session, not only during a recognized recess. Largely, this interpretation is a result of precedent since the founding.

    See Scotusblog (for example):

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/

    Keith: …they were fundamentally invalid because the vacancies did not occur during a recess which must be the case for temporary recess appointments.

  118. avatar
    Keith August 6, 2014 at 2:28 am #

    Paper: NRLB v Canning

    Thank you for the correction. I misread Canning.

  119. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 6, 2014 at 7:35 am #

    Keith:

    4f) President Obama will always be the 44th President of the United States, even if he is somehow found to be ineligible. The acts that he signed in to law will not magically become unsigned; executive orders will remain in force (until a subsequent President alters them).

    Think it through.

    Remember Jack Mccaskill, Legislative Attorney with the Congressional Research Service? “There is no federal mechanism to prevent an ineligible President from assuming the Office of the President of the United States.”

    The Eligibility Clause applies after the ineligible President assumes the office. Otherwise, the Eligibility Clause is moot. Nothing in the Constitution is moot. The Eligibility Clause can only be enforced by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States after the ineligible President assumes the office.

    Eligibility cases have failed because they sought to prevent a duly elected person who happened to be ineligible from taking the Oath of Office and assuming the office. It’s unconstitutional to prevent the majority from electing whomever they want to be their President. The majority can elect Arnold Shwartzeneggar, Valdimer Putin or anyone else to be President.

    Furthermore, eligibility cases have failed because they sought to have the ineligible President removed from office or enjoined from performing the functions of the Office of the President of the United States. That is unconstitutional, as well.

    I’m not advocating Obama’s removal. I’m not advocating that the majority can’t have whomever they want for President. I’m advocating for my Constitutional rights to object to an ineligible President for violence upon the U.S. Constitution. I want to preserve my citizenship in old America and prevent asset stripping and debt dumping on old American so the majority can start a new country that is debt free and in possession of old America’s assets.

    In Buckley v. Valeo, SCOTUS ruled the de facto officer doctrine applied to prior FEC decisions if the law concerning appointments to the FEC board was changed to be in compliance with the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The de facto officer doctrine applies to statutory-technical defects, see Ryder. The Eligibility clause and Appointments Clause are not statutes.

    In NRLB v. Noel Canning, the DC Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision the recess appointed NRLB members were in violation of the Appointments Clause. After the DC Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, all three recess appointees to the NRLB were removed and replaced. All administrative decisions, over 1500, were voided and will be reheard with validly appointed members of the NRLB.

    And when Obama is exposed as an ineligible President, all laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments will be voided. All appointees will be removed and replaced. My advise to Judge Hollander and all the smug little AUSAs who think they have immunity …. start planning your retirement.

  120. avatar
    Keith August 6, 2014 at 8:34 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Think it through.

    Remember Jack Mccaskill, Legislative Attorney with the Congressional Research Service? “There is no federal mechanism to prevent an ineligible President from assuming the Office of the President of the United States.”

    Perhaps you should think it through.

    The “mechanism to prevent an ineligible President from assuming the Office of the
    President of the United States” is a Constitutional one and involves 3 steps.

    Remember, there are four (4) eligibility criteria, and one disqualification criteria defined in the Constitution: NBC, age, residency, not a felon, and not already served two terms. These criteria are actually quite easy to validate; it is not rocket science.

    Step 1: (this is not actually part of the Constitutional process) The party nomination process provides the first step of verifying the eligibility of the candidates. Nomination campaigns are extremely competitive, if someone is hiding something, like ineligibility they simply won’t last to the Convention. No way, no how.

    2: The people of the United States elect delegates to the Electoral College. Those delegates have pledged themselves to particular candidates, so in effect the election is the first Constitutionally defined step in that mechanism. The election campaign is the toughest most media focused job interview in history. Hiding ineligibility in the pressure cooker of the General Election is impossible. Every journalist and wannabe blogger would piss their pants if they found the holy grail and exposed an impostor. There is no way that such a bombshell could escape the scrutiny of the General Election circus.

    3. The Electoral College reports its results to Congress. Congress has the Constitutional duty to validate those results. All you need is one Congressman and one Senator to object to the bonifides of a candidate and the Congress must examine it.

    I suspect that if McCaskill did say what you claim, that you have taken it out of context and misinterpreted what he said, because there most certainly is a ‘Federal mechanism’ and it is a public/private partnership defined in the Constitution.

    Perhaps McCaskill was referring to the fact that there is no “Office for Showing Us Your Papers, Boy” any where in the Federal Government.

    The rest of your word salad has nothing to do with whether or not there is a ‘federal mechanism to check eligibility” and certainly does not follow from anything you said that may have had some scintilla of fact.

    In spite of your misguided assertions that there is a magic reset button, a person duly sworn in as President IS the President until he or she leaves the office. There are four methods for a President to leave office: expiration of term, resignation, death/impairment, impeachment.

    No matter how a President leaves office, the acts of that President are permanent. Society could not function otherwise. If proof of Chester Arthur’s ineligibility came to light tomorrow, his acts as President will not be dismantled – he made some pretty important Civil Service reforms, signed the Chinese Exclusion Act (we could have millions more Chinese citizens if not for Arthur), and began the modernization of the Navy – what would you like to do about those? And what happens to all the stuff that has happened since that wouldn’t have happened?

    It is a simple existential fact that the de facto officer doctrine would absolutely apply in the extremely hypothetical case of a President being discovered ineligible after the swearing in. The Vice President would take over and life would go on. Period.

  121. avatar
    The Magic M August 6, 2014 at 8:59 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Remember Jack Mccaskill, Legislative Attorney with the Congressional Research Service? “There is no federal mechanism to prevent an ineligible President from assuming the Office of the President of the United States.”

    Where did he say that? The only Google search result with “There is no federal mechanism” related to eligibility is your own arglebargle on this blog:

    There is no federal mechanism in the Constitution for anyone in Congress to challenge a candidate’s eligibility for the Office of the President of the United States.

    (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/02/lindsey-oral-arguments-peppered-with-birther/#comment-314839)

  122. avatar
    The Magic M August 6, 2014 at 9:03 am #

    Keith: Step 1: […] The party nomination process […]

    2: The […] Electoral College. […] There is no way that such a bombshell could escape the scrutiny of the General Election circus.

    3. […] All you need is one Congressman and one Senator to object to the bonifides of a candidate and the Congress must examine it.

    #ButWhatIfEveryoneIsInOnItGhazi?

    That’s the birfer mindset – they don’t claim Obama somehow skirted by, they claim a conspiracy of thousands, if not millions, covered for him and continues to do so.

    Treating a birther like his claims do *not* require a vast conspiracy beyond imagination is lending more credence to their cause than it is worth.

  123. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 6, 2014 at 9:27 am #

    How about “who”? There is no Jack Mccaskill with the CRS.

    If one is talking about Jack Maskell, then there is a CRS Report by him that basically covers this question. It’s scanned with no text recognition and I don’t have time to read it all:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/56676154/Scan-0004

    The Magic M: Where did he say that? The only Google search result with “There is no federal mechanism” related to eligibility is your own arglebargle on this blog:

  124. avatar
    CarlOrcas August 6, 2014 at 10:05 am #

    For the sake of discussion, Sven, can you please explain just how things would work if your dream came to pass?

    SvenMagnussen: And when Obama is exposed as an ineligible President, all laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments will be voided.

    Exposed by whom? And who will decide exactly which rules., laws, etc., are voided?

    SvenMagnussen: All appointees will be removed and replaced.

    Removed and replaced by whom? What would the process be? What of all their official acts?

    Where does it end, Sven, and how does the country operate while all this is going on?

  125. avatar
    John Reilly August 6, 2014 at 10:13 am #

    Keith thoroughly covered my point about the Federal mechanism we have in place to keep out ineligible candidates. Sven refuses, absolutely refuses, to ever discuss this mechanism.

    Sven also refuses to discuss that several Republican secretaries of state investigated allegations that Pres. Obama was ineligible and found those allegations to be baseless. That includes at least Arizona and Kansas.

    Sven absolutely refuses to discuss real cases, like Ankeny v. Daniels, which rejected challenges to Pres. Obama’s eligibility.

    No, Sven says this:

    SvenMagnussen: I want to preserve my citizenship in old America and prevent asset stripping and debt dumping on old American so the majority can start a new country that is debt free and in possession of old America’s assets.

    These are all code words for “I want to go back in time to when negroes knew their place.”

    Sven was and remains a racist troll.

  126. avatar
    JPotter August 6, 2014 at 10:16 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m advocating for my Constitutional rights to object to an ineligible President for violence upon the U.S. Constitution. I want to preserve my citizenship in old America and prevent asset stripping and debt dumping on old American so the majority can start a new country that is debt free and in possession of old America’s assets.

    Oh, so you want a magic reset … to have your cake and eat it too! Why didn’t you say so?

    This stated goal has jacksquat to do with questioning Obama’s eligibility, but, hey, whatever, right?

    The majority … which majority is that?

    Dump the debt, keep the assets … you want America to default! How patriotic! Not going to do wonders for your “New America”s credit rating. And where would this New American, full of “Old Americans” be? Presumably right here, since the land would be the major asset you want to keep. And where will the “Old America”, apparently populated by “New Americans” be?

    Right here, existing as a permanent underclass with an alternate, assetless, debt-ridden gov’t?

    In short, you want vulture capitalism on a grand scale! Spin off the dross, the dross as you see it, no doubt.

    Silly and sick, Sven. But please, do continue.

  127. avatar
    CarlOrcas August 6, 2014 at 10:27 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I want to preserve my citizenship in old America……

    Please define what constitutes “old America” to you?

  128. avatar
    Sef August 6, 2014 at 10:30 am #

    JPotter: Spin off the dross, the dross as you see it, no doubt.

    When you get rid of the “telephone sanitizers” the remaining populace gets killed off by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.

  129. avatar
    y_p_w August 6, 2014 at 11:00 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Think it through.

    In NRLB v. Noel Canning, the DC Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision the recess appointed NRLB members were in violation of the Appointments Clause. After the DC Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision, all three recess appointees to the NRLB were removed and replaced. All administrative decisions, over 1500, were voided and will be reheard with validly appointed members of the NRLB.

    It’s already been addressed by others, but….

    What did that have to do with ineligibility of the officers? In that case it was ruled that their appointments were invalid and not that the officers were fundamentally ineligible for the position.

  130. avatar
    JPotter August 6, 2014 at 11:16 am #

    Keith: I suspect that if McCaskill did say what you claim, that you have taken it out of context and misinterpreted what he said, because there most certainly is a ‘Federal mechanism’ and it is a public/private partnership defined in the Constitution.

    Perhaps [Maskell}l was referring to the fact that there is no “Office for Showing Us Your Papers, Boy” any where in the Federal Government.

    Yes, Maskell wrote precisely that; it’s on pg. 4 of his report, at the link Doc provided.

    Sef: When you get rid of the “telephone sanitizers” the remaining populace gets killed off by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.

    An obvious consequence of Sven’s plan, depending on his details. I rather think he’s partial to the permanent underclass idea. The phone sanitizers would still be around, but the sanitizees would now be insulated from having to participate in the same sociopolitical economy. You know, pure exploitation, caste system style!

    He wants the goods, he just doesn’t want to pay for them. Commonly referred to as theft. Morally, if not legally.

  131. avatar
    Arthur August 6, 2014 at 11:32 am #

    SvenMagnussen: I want to preserve my citizenship in old America

    Have you considered Sun City–you’ll be surrounded by like-minded citizens and get a birther for sheriff.

  132. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 6, 2014 at 11:43 am #

    So after years of demanding Obama’s removal from office, Sven now claims he’s not demanding Obama’s removal from office, just some sort of parallel nation,

    You’re flailing, son.

  133. avatar
    CarlOrcas August 6, 2014 at 11:59 am #

    Bonsall Obot: So after years of demanding Obama’s removal from office, Sven now claims he’s not demanding Obama’s removal from office, just some sort of parallel nation,

    Yes……and here’s the entrance sign to Sven’s “old America”.

    http://p2.la-img.com/218/10220/2320273_1_l.jpg

  134. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I want to preserve my citizenship in old America

    The “Old America” you want, died in the 1960s. You won’t be getting it back either.

  135. avatar
    BillTheCat August 6, 2014 at 3:12 pm #

    Wow, you guys were right – he is a racist jackass.

  136. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 6, 2014 at 3:37 pm #

    All Birfers are racists; Birferism is a fundamentally racist philosophy.

  137. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 6, 2014 at 11:43 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I’m advocating for my Constitutional rights to object to an ineligible President for violence upon the U.S. Constitution.

    Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, for any stated or unstated reason, every United States citizen has had the right to nonsensically declare unofficially that each and every, or any past, then current, or future President or Presidents of the United States was, were, is, are, or will be ineligible to the Presidency. That doesn’t make such Presidents ineligible in fact, any more than he or she would be officially ineligible, if he or she simply announced that in their own opinion, they were ineligible to the presidency.

    Unless the Supreme Court of the United States decides differently in the future, currently the Constitution gives only Congress the right to decide whether or not a candidate receiving enough electoral votes is constitutionally eligible to become the President of the United States.

    Congress has twice affirmed that Barack Obama has been legally elected to and is constitutionally eligible to the presidency of the United States, so you are actually using your constitutional right of free speech to politically object to the Constitutionally non-prohibited actions of an eligible president, while you unofficially characterize those actions as constituting what you call violence upon the U.S. Constitution.

    Fortunately, the Constitution is well-enough understood and obeyed by fair-minded patriots serving in all three branches of government and the military forces, to protect a lawfully elected and constitutionally eligible president like Barack Obama, while simultaneously protecting the rights of lunatic citizens such as yourself, to voice personal extra-legal complaints and protests that have no real legal or Constitutional justification.

    What the Constitution provides you sad sacks mostly with, is the right to be loudly and repeatedly wrong.

  138. avatar
    John Reilly August 7, 2014 at 1:10 am #

    I have to disagree with some of my colleagues here about Sven’s right to express his views. I did not vote for. Pres. Obama either time. I contributed significant money to his opponents. I serve on our local Republican County Committee and I hope I played some small part in getting my state to select electors pledged to Mitt Romney rather than Pres. Obama in 2012.

    But Pres. Obama won. Part of your obligation as a participant in the democratic process is to accept and support that outcome. I was disappointed when Mitch McConnell identified the number one Republican priority was keeping Pres. Obama a one-term president. That should never be the party-out-power’s position. Rather. the number one Republican priority ought to be to do what is good for America. Following that are things like a balanced (or less unbalanced budget), a climate that supports job growth, less government interference in business and the marketplace, etc.

    I’m also a retired Air Force officer. As such, I’m subject to recall at any time. If Pres. Obama ordered me back, I’d say, “Yes Sir. Where do you wish me to report, Sir.” An American, especially an officer, has no other response. Pres. Obama is the Commander-in-Chief. That’s actually in the Constitution. He’s my Commander-in-Chief.

    While Sven has a theoretical right to spout his racist point of view, he has no right to make anyone listen. We just tolerate him because he’s the only game in town. But we should always remember that he’s a racist troll. And he has no right to secede because he is unhappy with the results of the election. If he thinks Pres. Obama was ineligible, he could try to persuade voters not to select electors pledged to Pres. Obama. When that failed, he could try to persuade electors to be unfaithful. That was tried and failed. Then he could try to persuade Congress to challenge the results or Pres. Obama’s eligibility. That was tried. I suppose one could try to persuade Chief Justice Roberts to stay home, but pretty much anyone can administer the oath of office. After that, you can try to convince the House to impeach the President. That’s been tried. No one has introduced such a resolution. Speaker Boehner seems bound and determined to make sure that subject does not come up.

    At some point you need to recognize that your irrational hatred of Pres. Obama is racism, plain and simple. And you need to recognize that racism is simply un-American. If you don’t get that, try enlisting and actually serving your country and realize that your life depends upon the Black guy in the plane next to you and your Hispanic female air traffic controller. In my case, the fellow who pulled me out of my damaged fighter is Hispanic, and his parents are illegal aliens living in Chicago. The doctor who saved my sight was Black.

    Sven was and is a racist troll. As I believe everyone can repent and be saved, I hold out hope for Sven. But we should always point out that he is a racist troll hiding behind the First Amendment to espouse fundamentally un-American opinions.

  139. avatar
    Lupin August 7, 2014 at 2:54 am #

    John Reilly:
    I have to disagree with some of my colleagues here about Sven’s right to express his views.I did not vote for. Pres. Obama either time.I contributed significant money to his opponents.I serve on our local Republican County Committee and I hope I played some small part in getting my state to select electors pledged to Mitt Romney rather than Pres. Obama in 2012.

    Bravo! You desperately need some sane Republicans to restore the balance.

    A couple of weeks ago, after the post here re Ted Cruz, I went on the Ann Coulter forum in the hope of engaging some reasonable Republicans in meaningful political debate.

    Personally, I am not a big fan of President Obama’s policies in several major areas and I thought I could learn from talking to the opposition.

    Alas, I found the same kind of birthers and nutcases that clutter Birther Report, minus the weird photos and gerbil references. Irrational hatred, anti-science bias, nonsensical dismissal of evidence that run contrary to their views. Even violent attacks on Mitt Romney, a candidate twice endorsed by Ms. Coulter herself!

    I don’t know who runs that forum, but it’s a swamp just as much as BR.

    If there were a conspiracy to turn the US into a one-party, pro-business regime, those who have strived to turn the Republican Party into a freak show surely are to blame.

  140. avatar
    Lupin August 7, 2014 at 2:56 am #

    Bonsall Obot:
    All Birfers are racists; Birferism is a fundamentally racist philosophy.

    I’m fond of reminding people that the so-called legal principles defended by Mario Apuzzo et al were the same as those enshrined in the founding documents of the KKK.

  141. avatar
    Lupin August 7, 2014 at 3:00 am #

    I suspect that as far as we furriners are concerned, a return to the Old America of, say, 1914, wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. 🙂

  142. avatar
    The Magic M August 7, 2014 at 5:40 am #

    Lupin: Alas, I found the same kind of birthers and nutcases that clutter Birther Report

    It’s quite helpful for people not familiar with the many political figures in the US – if somebody’s own fan forum is full of looney supporters, there’s a 99.9% chance they’re loons themselves.
    Those who are trustworthy and sensible politicians can be detected by checking how many looney *critics* they have. 🙂

    Seriously, I’m always surprised about the high number of vocal looneys in the general public and among politicians. We don’t have that over here in Germany, not by a long shot. (Usually the few wingnuts gather in their “Einstein was wrong, the Reich still exists and vaccination is satanic” echo chambers but leave the politicians alone.)

  143. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 7, 2014 at 5:41 am #

    Benji Franklin: Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, for any stated or unstated reason, every United States citizen has had the right to nonsensically declare unofficially that each and every, or any past, then current, or future President or Presidents of the United States was, were, is, are, or will be ineligible to the Presidency.

    Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States can object to the eligibility of President Obama, demand an investigation or immunity from the laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments of the ineligible President.

    America waives its sovereignty when an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States. A person arrested for inadmissibility, (crossing the border and illegally entering the United States) can object to U.S. federal officers enforcing the laws and regulations of the United States because America waived its sovereignty on January 20, 2009.

    Jack Maskell is correct. There is no federal mechanism to prevent a President-elect from assuming the Office of the President of the United States regardless of eligibility. Eligibility challenges must occur after the ineligible President assumes the office.

  144. avatar
    The Magic M August 7, 2014 at 5:58 am #

    John Reilly: That should never be the party-out-power’s position. Rather. the number one Republican priority ought to be to do what is good for America.

    That’s one big problem in many democracies – if the opposition party is working with the ruling party, they risk that any success is attributed to the ruling party by voters. So they have an incentive to sabotage at least parts of any legislation that would be beneficial. I’ve seen the same in my country many times over, including the old stupid excuse of “we’re against this improvement because it doesn’t improve things enough”.

  145. avatar
    The Magic M August 7, 2014 at 6:07 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s scanned with no text recognition and I don’t have time to read it all:

    Sven’s alleged quote does not appear anywhere in the text, not even paraphrased. It seems it was, again, Sven’s own paraphrasing of what the report actually says.

    (I didn’t even notice Sven mangled Maskell’s name, seems he can’t get *anything* right.)

  146. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 7, 2014 at 6:20 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States can object to the eligibility of President Obama, demand an investigation or immunity from the laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments of the ineligible President. .

    As has been explained, yes, anyone can make such a “demand.” Free speech!

    Your objection has been noted and given all due consideration. Your demands are rejected and your requested immunity is denied.

    SvenMagnussen:

    America waives its sovereignty when an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States.

    As has also been explained, no mechanism exists for such a waiver. This is something you made up.

    Further, no such event as you describe has occurred.

    SvenMagnussen:

    A person arrested for inadmissibility, (crossing the border and illegally entering the United States) can object to U.S. federal officers enforcing the laws and regulations of the United States because America waived its sovereignty on January 20, 2009.

    Said objection would be without merit; no such waiver of sovereignty has ever occurred; no mechanism exists in the Constitution for such a waiver. It is wholly a product of your imagination.

    SvenMagnussen:

    Jack Maskell is correct. There is no federal mechanism to prevent a President-elect from assuming the Office of the President of the United States regardless of eligibility. Eligibility challenges must occur after the ineligible President assumes the office.

    This is in direct contravention of the Constitution, which empowers congress and only congress to determine such eligibility, which they have done in this case. Twice.

    You are wrong. You lose. You get NOTHING.

  147. avatar
    The Magic M August 7, 2014 at 10:44 am #

    SvenMagnussen: America waives its sovereignty when an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States. […] America waived its sovereignty on January 20, 2009.

    Yeah, sounds just like the cranks in my country who claim Germany somehow ceased to exist in 1990 because someone made some legal boo-boo when the two German states were joined back into one.

    Besides, what are you really saying here? That the US are now British territory under Queen Liz? That I can drop by and shoot you because there is no legal authority to prosecute me? Please elaborate.

  148. avatar
    Rickey August 7, 2014 at 11:57 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Jack Maskell is correct. There is no federal mechanism to prevent a President-elect from assuming the Office of the President of the United States regardless of eligibility. Eligibility challenges must occur after the ineligible President assumes the office.

    Where in his report does Maskell say that? Please provide the exact quotation.

  149. avatar
    Benji Franklin August 7, 2014 at 2:32 pm #

    SvenMagnussen, you must find not being able to think clearly, very empowering.

    You wrote: “Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States can object to the eligibility of President Obama, demand an investigation or immunity from the laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments of the ineligible President.”

    But your objection is based upon your irrelevant unofficial and unauthoritative personal declaration that a President who has been twice officially declared eligible, is instead, by your reckoning or wishful thinking, ineligible. So your moot objection and demand could be made by anyone on Earth, under any nation’s jurisdiction or even by a stateless person, and not be less worthy than your own, legally and Constitutionally baseless ones, which you referred to in your comment.

    You wrote: “America waives its sovereignty when an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States.”

    You made that up. That’s not in the Constitution. You can’t create a Constitutional amendment all by yourself!

    You wrote: “A person arrested for inadmissibility, (crossing the border and illegally entering the United States) can object to U.S. federal officers enforcing the laws and regulations of the United States because America waived its sovereignty on January 20, 2009.”

    They can say they are objecting “because America waived its sovereignty on January 20, 2009”, but stating that illogical unofficial opinion, does not create a legitimate excuse to ignore the official legal and Constitutional requirements as they apply to citizens and others, because officially, America never waived its sovereignty on January 20, 2009.

    You wrote:” Eligibility challenges must occur after the ineligible President assumes the office.”

    You are using the expression ‘Eligibility challenges’ ambiguously there. On the one hand, your stated suspicion that Obama would be officially found Constitutionally ineligible to the Presidency, is an informal challenge to his eligibility. Such an informal challenge might, in certain settings and at certain times politically pressure a candidate into withdrawing from the race before the election, if the accusation of ineligibility was known by the candidate to be true.

    But official eligibility challenges normally occur immediately BEFORE a President assumes office, during Congress’ certification of the electoral college vote totals. Once a President’s election has been made official by Congress, he/she is officially the President, and no Constitutional provision exists for reversing that determination. He/she could resign, or die, or Constitutionally be removed by impeachment and trial (charged ironically with having always been ineligible), and in any of those cases, subsequently replaced Constitutionally, but his official Presidency could never Constitutionally be, officially “undone”, only ended.

    To the extent that Congress and or a new President wanted to reverse or undo the effects of various laws and orders which became law and survived any judicial review under a given President, it would take as usual, new statutes and executive orders tailored to accomplish that. This Birther invention of the possibility of having a Presidency, “rolled back” including appointments being automatically undone and legal actions and statutes and regulations being automatically “reversed”, is real comic-book thinking!

  150. avatar
    JPotter August 7, 2014 at 2:50 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: America waives its sovereignty when an ineligible President assumes the Office of the President of the United States.

    Really? Is this a special rule that only applies to America, or is it hidden in the UN charter somewhere and apply to all members, or is it written on the foundation stones of the universe and something everyone is “just supposed to know”?

    This sounds very feudal, the idea that an illegitimate heir is no heir at all and has no right to rule.

    So who is the “supersovereign” in charge of enforcing this rule on all sovereigns who are subject?

    … and why has no other sovereign noticed that the United States is now up for grabs? How has this secret been kept for 5½ years?

  151. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 7, 2014 at 8:09 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: so the majority can start a new country that is debt free and in possession of old America’s assets.

    —–
    Thank you, for finally articulating the relief you seek. Denied.

  152. avatar
    The Magic M August 8, 2014 at 3:47 am #

    The idea that the current state has somehow “lost its statehood” as well as the idea that you could somehow unload all the debt on the “previous non-existing state” and start again with a clean slate is vanilla SovCit territory.

  153. avatar
    SvenMagnussen August 8, 2014 at 5:20 am #

    Rickey: Where in his report does Maskell say that? Please provide the exact quotation.

    I quoted Jack Mccaskill and paraphrased a published commentary from Legislative Attorney of the Congressional Research Service, Jack Maskell. Try to keep up!

    If you think Mr. Maskell makes the argument there is a federal mechanism to prevent an ineligible President-elect from taking the oath and assuming the Office of the President of the United States, then let me know.

    As you well know, Congress does not have Constitutional authority to modify, negate or amend a vote by the Electors. Congress has oversight authority after the votes are read into the record and not before. Congress attends a reading of the votes submitted by the Electors and votes on whether or not the reading and counting of the votes were free of fraud.

    The Eiligibility Clause is not applicable until an ineligible President assumes the office. The Appointments Clause is not applicable until an ineligible President makes an appointment. An ineligible President can only be removed by impeachment by the House and a trial by the Senate. The court does not have Constitutional authority to order an impeachment hearing or a trial by the Senate under the Separation of Powers Doctrine. The court does have Constitutional authority to immunize an individual from the law, rules and regulations of a usurper after notice is made to any executive level U.S. federal officer.

    Take a look at the recent NRLB v. Noel Canning case. Noel Canning lost their case in a dispute with the Teamsters at the NRLB. Noel Canning accused the NRLB of lacking a statutory quorum to make decisions adversely impacting Noel Canning because 3 of the 5 board members assumed their offices after a violation of the Appointments Clause.

    The District Court agreed with the NRLB’s decision adversely impacting Noel Canning, but ruled the decision was voided because the NRLB lacked a quorum to make decisions adversely impacting anyone because 3 of the 5 board members assumed their offices in violation of the Appointments Clause. Every decision those 3 board members participated in was voided. After the Circuit court affirmed the District Court’s ruling, the 3 board members were removed and replaced. SCOTUS affirmed the Circuit Court’s opinion.

    Every decision an appointee has made after assuming their office in violation of the Appointments Clause is voided ab initio. Every decision, rule, law, regulation, executive order and appointment made by an ineligible President will be voided ab initio. However, an ineligible President cannot be removed by court order or impeached by court order.

  154. avatar
    Thomas Brown August 8, 2014 at 7:14 am #

    Sven, your “what ifs” are tiring. Try to keep up: we do not now, nor have we ever had, an ineligible president. So anything you say is pointless, even if at times correct about that eventuality. And the de facto officer doctrine means nothing would be voided. So that part’s wrong.

    Try to keep up! Maybe you were distracted by the local elementary school letting out.

  155. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 8, 2014 at 7:26 am #

    Multiplying gibberish does not make it not-gibberish.

    Sven continues to provide “quotes” he cannot cite, and asserts constitutional doctrine without precedent or basis in law. He continues to assume the disproved notion that the President was or is ineligible to that office, and the disproved notion that appointments made by an ineligible President (who does not in fact exist) are somehow void. Meanwhile, the Republic endures, and a sad old man in Missouri who never lived up to his potential and who failed at every attempt he made at elected office types gibberish on the internet, trying to convince strangers to make his racist fever dreams come true.

    We’re done here.

  156. avatar
    Paper August 8, 2014 at 8:57 am #

    That is one of the functions of the First Amendment. It doesn’t just hinder government from controlling speech. It also better allows everyone to see nonsense for what it is, the better to be rejected. So people such as this are not actually hiding behind the First Amendment. The First Amendment helps them reveal themselves and their views for what they are. Free speech includes the right of people not to listen (as you note), to reject, ignore, ridicule, demonstrate how nonsensical (or monstrous) something is, or simply to toss such things in the garbage.

    John Reilly:

    While Sven has a theoretical right to spout his racist point of view, he has no right to make anyone listen.

    …we should always point out that he is……hiding behind the First Amendment to espouse fundamentally un-American opinions.

  157. avatar
    Lupin August 8, 2014 at 9:24 am #

    SvenMagnussen: An ineligible President can only be removed by impeachment by the House and a trial by the Senate.

    Clearly, the House/Senate must believe the President is/was eligible, otherwise they would have taken action to remove him before,and esp. prevent his reelection.

    Since that never happened, he *is/was* eligible, and all else proceeds as before.

    There seems to be two schools of thought at work here: yours, and the rest of the world’s.

  158. avatar
    Lupin August 8, 2014 at 9:30 am #

    Paper: That is one of the functions of the First Amendment. It doesn’t just hinder government from controlling speech. It also better allows everyone to see nonsense for what it is, the better to be rejected. So people such as this are not actually hiding behind the First Amendment. The First Amendment helps them reveal themselves and their views for what they are. Free speech includes the right of people not to listen (as you note), to reject, ignore, ridicule, demonstrate how nonsensical (or monstrous) something is, or simply to toss such things in the garbage.

    Despite having suffered the heavy burdens of censorship, arrest, imprisonment & worse throughout the centuries, we in Europe have reached a somewhat less radical consensus on the subject of free speech, esp. with respect to what I might generally refer to as “hate speech”.

  159. avatar
    Paper August 8, 2014 at 9:44 am #

    I believe you did not in fact quote a non-existent Jack Mccaskill and that you actually just quoted yourself.

    See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/02/lindsey-oral-arguments-peppered-with-birther/#comment-314839

    If you believe you also have paraphrased Jack Maskell, you have done so inaccurately. See the document by Maskell that Doc provides above. Note also Keith’s comments (and others here) about how Congress has a role regarding the question of eligibility, because Maskell makes that same point. Maskell in the process also contradicts your other points about the role of Congress in counting electoral votes.

    So consider yourself informed, as we are letting you know that Maskell does identify a federal mechanism, one called Congress. Take a look.

    SvenMagnussen: I quoted Jack Mccaskill and paraphrased a published commentary from Legislative Attorney of the Congressional Research Service, Jack Maskell. Try to keep up!

    If you think Mr. Maskell makes the argument there is a federal mechanism to prevent an ineligible President-elect from taking the oath and assuming the Office of the President of the United States, then let me know.

  160. avatar
    John Reilly August 8, 2014 at 10:08 am #

    Congrats to Sven finally admitting that impeachment and conviction is the only way to remove a President.

    Of course, he remains firm in his totally bizarre belief that a court can “immunize” someone who objects to Pres. Obama. Sort of a “boy in the bubble” moment there.

    SvenMagnussen: I want to preserve my citizenship in old America and prevent asset stripping and debt dumping on old American so the majority can start a new country that is debt free and in possession of old America’s assets.

    In Sven’s hands, possession of “old America’s assets” probably means getting his family’s slaves back.

  161. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 8, 2014 at 10:23 am #

    SvenMagnussen, Wednesday morning:

    Remember Jack Mccaskill, Legislative Attorney with the Congressional Research Service? “There is no federal mechanism to prevent an ineligible President from assuming the Office of the President of the United States.”

    It was subsequently pointed out to Sven, the Great Legal Mind of our age, that the attorney he was “quoting” was Jack Caskell, and that Caskell was saying the exact opposite of what Sven claimed.

    Hilarity ensues:

    SvenMagnussen, less than 46 hours after the previous quote, which did not disappear, but still exists, on the internet, IN THE SAME THREAD:

    I quoted Jack Mccaskill and paraphrased a published commentary from Legislative Attorney of the Congressional Research Service, Jack Maskell.

    So Sven is just a blatant liar, doubling down on stupid. And he thinks anyone reading his gibberish is too stupid to notice.

    More to come (I have to get back to work,) but let’s never forget how blatantly and shamelessly Sven is wiling to lie to make a “point.”

  162. avatar
    Arthur August 8, 2014 at 10:27 am #

    Sven is such a mendacious old fool. If he lies so easily and stupidly about this, one wonders how many time he’s lied in court.

    Paper: I believe you did not in fact quote a non-existent Jack Mccaskill and that you actually just quoted yourself.

    See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/02/lindsey-oral-arguments-peppered-with-birther/#comment-314839

    If you believe you also have paraphrased Jack Maskell, you have done so inaccurately.

  163. avatar
    Bovril August 8, 2014 at 10:38 am #

    Dear Seven of None

    When you burble on about “eligibility challenges” you are aware of and do remember all of those fascinating challenges you Birthers did challenging Obama’s placement on the ballot (in both elections)…?

    For example Ankeny…?

    And how the courts ALL stated that the matter was moot, settled law, frivolous etc etc..?

    So, yep there were all these “eligibility challanges”, they were adjudicated and they were all thrown out meaning, all the “stuff” you desire was completed.

    Happy now..?

  164. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 8, 2014 at 10:50 am #

    SvenMagnussen, proven liar and very bad lawyer, attempts smug condescension:

    Try to keep up!

    Apologies to all those whose irony meters were switched on… but you should know better, in a Sven thread.

  165. avatar
    Arthur August 8, 2014 at 1:05 pm #

    I’m astonished that Sven hasn’t returned to defend his lies and misrepresentations. Just astonished.

  166. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 8, 2014 at 1:14 pm #

    He generally posts about 4am-7am local (Independence, MO) time. His laughably wrong legal advice is then immediately debunked. He returns the next morning, espousing already-disproved speculation. Rinse and repeat.

  167. avatar
    Arthur August 8, 2014 at 2:05 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: He generally posts about 4am-7am local (Independence, MO) time.

    So you’re saying he’s a vampire?

  168. avatar
    Bonsall Obot August 8, 2014 at 2:08 pm #

    Arthur: So you’re saying he’s a vampire?

    Can’t rule it out. That means it’s FACT. Birfoon logic FTW!

  169. avatar
    Rickey August 8, 2014 at 3:21 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: I quoted Jack Mccaskill

    Who is Jack Mccaskill? What is the exact quote? Please provide a link to your source.

  170. avatar
    Arthur August 8, 2014 at 3:46 pm #

    Bonsall Obot: Can’t rule it out.

    Until I see a birth certificate that says Sven isn’t a vampire, it would be dangerous to assume that he’s human. Wasn’t his father from Transylvania?

  171. avatar
    RanTalbott August 8, 2014 at 9:23 pm #

    Of course, a BC wouldn’t tell you whether he was turned into one by being bitten later.

    But legend has it that, if you hold a vampire’s BC up to a mirror, and read it backwards, the “Certificate of Live Birth” caption will spell out “John is dead”.

  172. avatar
    Arthur August 8, 2014 at 9:32 pm #

    RanTalbott: Of course, a BC wouldn’t tell you whether he was turned into one by being bitten later.

    But legend has it that, if you hold a vampire’s BC up to a mirror, and read it backwards, the “Certificate of Live Birth” caption will spell out “John is dead”.

    You see, that’s why I like this site: you learn something new everyday.

  173. avatar
    Dave B. August 8, 2014 at 9:56 pm #

    Huh.

    SvenMagnussen: The Eiligibility Clause is not applicable until an ineligible President assumes the office. The Appointments Clause is not applicable until an ineligible President makes an appointment.

  174. avatar
    RanTalbott August 9, 2014 at 12:12 am #

    Rickey: Please provide a link to your source.

    You should always make sure your hepatitis vaccinations are up to date before you ask a birther that.

    And wash your hands thoroughly if you follow it.

  175. avatar
    Paper August 10, 2014 at 7:24 am #

    I personally think this is one of the areas where the U.S. has the better approach. Europe doesn’t do *everything* better! ;-}

    Lupin: Despite having suffered the heavy burdens of censorship, arrest, imprisonment & worse throughout the centuries, we in Europe have reached a somewhat less radical consensus on the subject of free speech, esp. with respect to what I might generally refer to as “hate speech”.