Main Menu

The occasional open thread: Like a bridge over troubled birthers

Put your Obama conspiracy comments that don’t relate to the current articles here. It will ease your mind.

This thread will close in 2 weeks.

208 Responses to The occasional open thread: Like a bridge over troubled birthers

  1. avatar
    Rickey June 11, 2015 at 2:05 am #

    Quoting Arthur from the prior open thread:

    Arthur June 10, 2015 at 10:55 am #

    Cody, like most lunatics, has a thin skin.

    He also is dishonest. To rebut protestations that his petition has been dead filed, he cited three SCOTUS case in which respondents waived their right to respond but the petitioner was granted cert anyway. However, he conveniently omitted the fact that in each of those cases SCOTUS asked the respondent to file a response.

    We have always maintained that if a SCOTUS petition is distributed for a conference without a response, the petition is dead filed unless SCOTUS calls for a response. No response has been called for in Judy v. Obama.

  2. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 11, 2015 at 3:35 pm #

    About the kindest thing that can be said about Judy is that he is a lunatic idiot. He lives in a world of self delusion, and doesn’t play well with others at all. He is a presidential candidate about like my long dead Siamese cat, who was admittedly Natural Born.

  3. avatar
    Rickey June 11, 2015 at 5:47 pm #

    Notorial Dissent:
    About the kindest thing that can be said about Judy is that he is a lunatic idiot. He lives in a world of self delusion, and doesn’t play well with others at all. He is a presidential candidate about like my long dead Siamese cat, who was admittedly Natural Born.

    And he applied to file in forma pauperis, which means that the taxpayers are footing the bill for his nonsense.

  4. avatar
    JPotter June 12, 2015 at 6:20 am #

    The ongoing Arpaio legal entanglements popped up on the NPR again yesterday.
    Links to recent reports on Arpaio from NPR:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/search/index.php?searchinput=Arpaio

  5. avatar
    JPotter June 12, 2015 at 7:22 am #

    In another report on NPR this morning, concerning the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, it was reported that the biggest fans of said document have been American lawyers. In 1957, the ABA funded a monument at Runnymede, and laid a stone on a return visit in 1985:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnymede#Magna_Carta_Memorial

    800 American lawyers are expected at the 800th anniversary.

    Seems like they have a thing for the English legal tradition.

  6. avatar
    Reality Check June 12, 2015 at 8:37 am #

    Fortunately, the costs are pretty small. I am sure all it took is for the lowest level clerk in the cert pool to scan it for about one minute and figure out to put in the dead pile along with a hundred other or so that will denied without comment.

    Rickey: And he applied to file in forma pauperis, which means that the taxpayers are footing the bill for his nonsense.

  7. avatar
    Keith June 12, 2015 at 9:15 am #

    Interesting discussion about the proposal in Australia to strip the citizenship of people (who already hold dual citizenship) who go Syria or Iraq to fight with DAESH (ISIS) on the Australian “Radio National” program ‘The Minefield’.

    Citizenship – what is it good for? on The Minefield

    The USA has a defined State Department procedure for identifying people who have performed an action that is potentially expatriating. Behind the procedure is an attempt to determine whether or not the citizen intended to give up his citizenship by that act. The assumption is that you did not want to give up your citizenship – you cannot give it up by accident and any determination can be reviewed. Taking military action against the USA is one of those potentially expatriating acts, by the way.

    Australia is now proposing to strip citizenship by a decision of the responsible minister – it is a political, non-reviewable, decision. Courts would not be involved.

    The discussion does present a different angle to the discussions we have had here the last few days.

  8. avatar
    CRJ2016 June 12, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

    [He also is dishonest. To rebut protestations that his petition has been dead filed, he cited three SCOTUS case in which respondents waived their right to respond but the petitioner was granted cert anyway. However, he conveniently omitted the fact that in each of those cases SCOTUS asked the respondent to file a response.

    We have always maintained that if a SCOTUS petition is distributed for a conference without a response, the petition is dead filed unless SCOTUS calls for a response. No response has been called for in Judy v. Obama.]

    And Rickey left out that fact SCOTUS in those three cases asked for a Response “After the Original Conference” Rickey …Ticky Tembo. Whose being dishonest? That leaves us about five days after the 18th of June which is the Original Conference date. Just to ease your mind… wait.. BLOW your mind.

  9. avatar
    Daniel June 12, 2015 at 2:50 pm #

    CRJ2016:
    SCOTUS in those three cases asked for a Response “After the Original Conference”

    Care to put money on the results, Cody? I’m being very serious here. I’ll literally bet the farm, the entire thing, with furnishings, equipment, and livestock. I’ll even pay the taxes on it for the next 10 years.

    C’mon Cody, make the bet, Cody. I’m confident, are you?

  10. avatar
    Daniel June 12, 2015 at 3:00 pm #

    CRJ2016:
    SCOTUS in those three cases asked for a Response “After the Original Conference”

    Response after the original Conference?

    I don’t see that anywhere in the dockets Cody. Are you sure? Do you have evidence that this ever happened? Or are you just spinning gears again?

    Lawyers in the group could you weigh in please? This “call for response after the original conference”….

    Is that even a thing? Any evidence that ever happened in CRJ’s…… cases?

  11. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 12, 2015 at 3:16 pm #

    Just a reminder that we should be seeing Melendres’ brief in response to the recusal motion today.

    Judge Snow’s order set June 12th as the response due date, and set June 22nd as Arpaio’s reply due date (see last paragraph). http://www.scribd.com/doc/267362785/Melendres-1141-ORDER-D-ariz-2-07-Cv-02513-1141-ORDER-Re-Various-Matters

  12. avatar
    Reality Check June 12, 2015 at 4:58 pm #

    Can I get in on that action? Please. please, pretty please.

    Daniel: C’mon Cody, make the bet, Cody. I’m confident, are you?

  13. avatar
    Reality Check June 12, 2015 at 5:12 pm #

    Here are Judy’s 3 cases where a response was requested after a waiver of right to respond either with or following an order scheduling for conference:

    Clyde Reed, et al., Petitioners v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al.

    Nov 26 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 13, 2013.
    Nov 26 2013 Response Requested . (Due December 26, 2013)

    Andre Lee Coleman, aka Andre Lee Coleman-Bey, Petitioner v. Todd Tollefson, et al.
    Jun 18 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.
    Jun 23 2014 Response Requested . (Due July 23, 2014)

    Clyde Reed, et al., Petitioners v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al
    Nov 26 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 13, 2013.
    Nov 26 2013 Response Requested . (Due December 26, 2013)

    So in those three cases the Judy mentions the response was either requested the same day that it was distributed for conference or at most 3 business days after the scheduling order. In Judy’s case it has been 7 business days.

    Oh and in the second case an amicus brief was filed. Judy extended an invitation but none have been filed in his case.

    It’s dead.

  14. avatar
    Rickey June 12, 2015 at 5:15 pm #

    CRJ2016:
    [He also is dishonest. To rebut protestations that his petition has been dead filed, he cited three SCOTUS case in which respondents waived their right to respond but the petitioner was granted cert anyway. However, he conveniently omitted the fact that in each of those cases SCOTUS asked the respondent to file a response.

    We have always maintained that if a SCOTUS petition is distributed for a conference without a response, the petition is dead filed unless SCOTUS calls for a response. No response has been called for in Judy v. Obama.]

    And Rickey left out that fact SCOTUS in those three cases asked for a Response “After the Original Conference” Rickey …Ticky Tembo. Whose being dishonest? That leaves us about five days after the 18th of June which is the Original Conference date. Just to ease your mind… wait.. BLOW your mind.

    Either you are deliberately lying again or you have a reading comprehension deficit.

    The first case which you cited is 13-502. As the docket clearly shows, the conference was scheduled for 12/13/13 and the response was requested on 11/26/13. According to my calendar, 11/26 comes before 12/13.

    No. 13-502
    Title:
    Clyde Reed, et al., Petitioners
    v.
    Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al.
    Docketed: October 21, 2013
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Case Nos.: (11-15588)
    Decision Date: February 8, 2013
    Rehearing Denied: July 24, 2013
    Questions Presented

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Oct 21 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 20, 2013)
    Oct 31 2013 Waiver of right of respondents Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al. to respond filed.
    Nov 19 2013 Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Professors Ashutosh Bhagwat, et al.
    Nov 26 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 13, 2013.
    Nov 26 2013 Response Requested . (Due December 26, 2013)

    The second case which you cited is 13-1333. The conference was scheduled for 9/29/14 and the response was requested on 6/23/14. 6/23 is three months before 9/29.

    No. 13-1333
    Title:
    Andre Lee Coleman, aka Andre Lee Coleman-Bey, Petitioner
    v.
    Todd Tollefson, et al.
    Docketed: May 5, 2014
    Linked with 13A985
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    Case Nos.: (11-1502)
    Decision Date: October 23, 2013
    Rehearing Denied: January 17, 2014
    Rule 12.4
    Questions Presented

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mar 27 2014 Application (13A985) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 17, 2014 to May 12, 2014, submitted to Justice Kagan.
    Mar 27 2014 Application (13A985) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until May 12, 2014.
    May 5 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 4, 2014)
    May 28 2014 Waiver of right of respondents Todd Tollefson, et al. to respond filed.
    Jun 4 2014 Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.
    Jun 18 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.
    Jun 23 2014 Response Requested . (Due July 23, 2014)

    The third case which you cited is 13-550. The conference was scheduled for 12/13/13 and the response was requested on 12/9/13.

    No. 13-550
    Title:
    Glenn Tibble, et al., Petitioners
    v.
    Edison International, et al.
    Docketed: November 1, 2013
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Case Nos.: (10-56406, 10-56415)
    Decision Date: March 21, 2013
    Rehearing Denied: August 1, 2013
    Questions Presented

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Oct 30 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 2, 2013)
    Nov 15 2013 Waiver of right of respondents Edison International, et al. to respond filed.
    Nov 26 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 13, 2013.
    Dec 9 2013 Response Requested . (Due January 8, 2014)

    Contrary to what you claim, in all three cases a response was requested PRIOR to the conference date.

    A response was not requested in your case today, so if you want to convince yourself that you still have a chance, you have three business days left. If I were you, I would not take Daniel’s bet.

  15. avatar
    Rickey June 12, 2015 at 5:17 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Here are Judy’s 3 cases where a response was requested after a waiver of right to respond either with or following an order scheduling for conference:

    Clyde Reed, et al., Petitioners v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al.

    Nov 26 2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 13, 2013.
    Nov 26 2013Response Requested . (Due December 26, 2013)

    Andre Lee Coleman, aka Andre Lee Coleman-Bey, Petitioner v. Todd Tollefson, et al.
    Jun 18 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.
    Jun 23 2014Response Requested . (Due July 23, 2014)

    Clyde Reed, et al., Petitioners v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al
    Nov 26 2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 13, 2013.
    Nov 26 2013Response Requested . (Due December 26, 2013)

    So in those three cases the Judy mentions the response was either requested the same day that it was distributed for conference or at most 3 business days after the scheduling order. In Judy’s case it has been 7 business days. It’s dead.

    You beat me by three minutes!

  16. avatar
    Daniel June 12, 2015 at 7:43 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Can I get in on that action? Please. please, pretty please.

    Sure why not. We’d have to share whatever stakes he could put up. I’m assuming everything he has…. What’s nothing split two ways?

    Still it’s an easy win with no risk… even if it’s only for bragging rights.

  17. avatar
    Pete June 12, 2015 at 8:11 pm #

    Notorial Dissent: About the kindest thing that can be said about Judy is that he is a lunatic idiot. He lives in a world of self delusion, and doesn’t play well with others at all. He is a presidential candidate about like my long dead Siamese cat, who was admittedly Natural Born.

    I object! First of all, your cat, while admittedly Natural Born, was not a Citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that we do not accept cats as Citizens. Yes, it may be discriminatory against felines, but it has been the standard and accepted practice both of the United States government, and of the colonial and English governments before that.

    And no, I do not have a specific Supreme Court decision to cite on the Constitutional ineligibility of cats to the Presidency. But I am quite confident that the Court, if pressed, would rule in my favor on this.

    Secondly, your cat is ineligible to elected office (including the Presidency) for the secondary reason that he is Dead. Again, I don’t have specific case law, but it is a well-established precedent in general practice from the earliest days of our Republic that Dead individuals are not permitted to serve in public office. Whether they may be elected is another matter. And, whether they may vote is another matter as well. But they are not generally allowed to serve, even if elected.

    That your cat is Siamese is, of course, irrelevant, since he was Natural Born.

    But not, as I say, a Citizen.

  18. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 12, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

    J.D. Sue: Just a reminder that we should be seeing Melendres’ brief in response to the recusal motion today.

    —–

    Here it is (thanks to fogbow for the link): http://www.scribd.com/doc/268519896/Melendres-1150-Opp-to-Recusal-Motion-D-ariz-2-07-Cv-02513-1150-P-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Recuse-w-Exhibits

  19. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 12, 2015 at 11:26 pm #

    Here is something interesting, from the redacted declaration of Attorney Cecillia Wang in support of Plaintiffs’ response to the recusal motion:

    4. On May 6, 2015, Defendants produced documents to Plaintiffs on an attorneys’-eyes-only basis. Exhibits B-F, attached hereto, were among those documents. I am submitting Exhibits B-F under seal, with redacted copies in the publicly filed version of this Declaration.

    a. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is an email chain with the top-most email dated June 29, 2014, from “David Webb” to 1tick@earthlink.net, Bates-stamped MELC202132.

    b. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is an email chain with the top-most email dated November 7, 2014, from Brian Mackiewicz to Larry Klayman, Bates-stamped MELC202173-75.

    c. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a December 9, 2014 email from “Mike” to detmack@gmail.com, Bates-stamped MELC202048.

    d. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is an email chain with the top-most email dated April 20, 2015, from Larry Klayman to Michael Zullo, Bates stamped MELC202142-45.

    e. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a document entitled “Joe Arpaio Brief/Timeline,” Bates stamped MELC199917-35.

  20. avatar
    RanTalbott June 13, 2015 at 2:19 am #

    Well, BR doesn’t have a non-update from Gallups’ Free Dumb Friday show this week. I guess he must’ve decided not to risk it after nearly choking to death in rehearsal when he tried to say “soon” and “forthcoming”…

    Something amusing that I hadn’t seen before popped up in the “suggested” sidebar at Youtube: a fundraising video by Lord FeldmanMonckton for the Clueless Clown Posse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br9imjm1kvk

    There’s about as little substance to it as you’d expect in a birfoon video, but it’s worth jumping to about the 12-minute mark to get a look at his hilarious costume, and to watch him do his impression of Joe from Accounting being shoved in front of the camera to do the pitch on PBS Pledge Night.

  21. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 13, 2015 at 4:15 am #

    J.D. Sue: Here is something interesting, from the redacted declaration of Attorney Cecillia Wang

    I find it interesting that defendants take the position that while the court is considering the recusal motion, the monitor’s actions have to be put on hold as well. Honi soit qui mal y pense

  22. avatar
    Lupin June 13, 2015 at 5:07 am #

    Keith: Interesting discussion about the proposal in Australia to strip the citizenship of people (who already hold dual citizenship) who go Syria or Iraq to fight with DAESH (ISIS) on the Australian “Radio National” program ‘The Minefield’.

    France looked into this too, but there are international treaties that prevent countries from making someone “stateless” (apatride), so unless the targets are already dual citizens of some other country, we can’t do it.

  23. avatar
    Keith June 13, 2015 at 9:48 am #

    Lupin: France looked into this too, but there are international treaties that prevent countries from making someone “stateless” (apatride), so unless the targets are already dual citizens of some other country, we can’t do it.

    Yes the govt spin doctors figured out that problem about 5 minutes after they had been howled down by every radio breakfast program in the country. Then they emphasised that they only meant those with dual citizenship or (get this) COULD take advantage of eligibility for citizenship in another country.

    What I want to know is what if the other country in a dual citizenship scenario beats Australia to the punch.

  24. avatar
    Rickey June 13, 2015 at 12:10 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —–

    Here it is (thanks to fogbow for the link): http://www.scribd.com/doc/268519896/Melendres-1150-Opp-to-Recusal-Motion-D-ariz-2-07-Cv-02513-1150-P-Opposition-to-Motion-to-Recuse-w-Exhibits

    A couple of fascinating tidibts:

    Documents later produced by the Defendants support the newspaper account that—contrary to the testimony of Arpaio and Sheridan—the MCSO-Montgomery investigation targeted the Court. Wang Decl., Ex. B, F. The documents also reveal that MCSO personnel continued to press Dennis Montgomery for results up until the eve of the contempt hearing, even though they had already concluded that he was not credible.

    And a footnote which should be causing sleepless nights for Zullo:

    Even more troubling, as the Court noted in a post-hearing status conference, the
    evidence indicates that Dennis Montgomery informed MCSO personnel—with Chief Deputy Sheridan’s knowledge—that he was using a database of information “harvested by the CIA and confiscated by him” in his investigation, and also purported to be tracking telephone calls between the Court, the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General, and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona. Tr. of May 14, 2015 at 44:22-45:2, 45:10-16; Wang Decl., Ex. C, F. This implicates possible violations of federal criminal laws by MCSO personnel in the course of the MCSO-Montgomery investigation. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(b)-(f) (taking or communication of documents relating to national defense); 798 (disclosure of classified information); 1503 (intimidation of federal court and obstruction of justice); 1509 (obstruction of court orders); 1924 (unauthorized removal of classified information); 2511 (intercepting electronic communications); 2701 (unlawful access to stored communications).

  25. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 13, 2015 at 12:32 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I find it interesting that defendants take the position that while the court is considering the recusal motion, the monitor’s actions have to be put on hold as well. Honi soit qui mal y pense…

    —-
    Indeed. As I recall, the Judge plainly said no NEW orders, and that all orders already in effect remained in effect. Lots of “attitude” in defense counsel’s language and position, obnoxiously bordering on the contemptuous. It’s like she thinks, by virtue of her bogus hail-mary Rule-11-worthy recusal motion, there is some magical sort of stay of all court orders binding upon Arpaio et al. She’s trippin’.

    Seems to me, where one’s client is up to his eyeballs in evidence of willful contempt of federal court, counsel should be on her best behavior, and at least appear like she has a grip on her client and herself.

    Seems to me, defense counsel has thrown caution to the wind, and is playing Rule 11 russian-roulette with her law practice. But, what do I know….

  26. avatar
    Reality Check June 13, 2015 at 1:41 pm #

    I can confirm that is Mike Zullo’s email address in the redacted documents submitted by the plaintiffs. David Webb is a conservative talk show host on Sirius XM Radio. I bet Carl Gallups is just crushed that another radio host got the shout out. I don’t know this Webb guy. I gave up my XM Radio subscription years ago. I’ll have to check to see if Zullo ever appeared on that show.

  27. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 13, 2015 at 1:52 pm #

    Rickey: A couple of fascinating tidibts:


    Very fascinating.

    Personally, I guess for various reasons, I am lately particularly interested in the games and fate of Larry Klayman, and kinda enjoy envisioning his sleeplessness nights over what possible tales will be told from those documents. He does, after all, represent the games/interests of Montgomery throughout, while he represents Arpaio, and represents Lord knows what else.

    So, regarding the fascinating stuff you point out, I consider how Klayman is representing Montgomery and Arpaio and whoever while “MCSO personnel continued to press Dennis Montgomery for results up until the eve of the contempt hearing, even though they had already concluded that he was not credible.” And I wonder what revelation might be found in, for example, Exhibit E (i.e., an email chain with the top-most email dated April 20, 2015, from Larry Klayman to Michael Zullo, Bates stamped MELC202142-45). And I contemplate Klayman’s rush to try to intervene in the Melendres case with nasty/baseless motion and appeal to try to get Judge Snow off the case/trail, right after the first few days of the contempt hearing…

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice” law in a dishonest, conflict-infested, ego-maniacally contemptuous way.

  28. avatar
    Reality Check June 13, 2015 at 2:12 pm #

    This is rich. Judy has filed for a default judgement against Barack Obama and is making a big deal that the waiver of the right to respond was unsigned. It gets even better though. There is a reference to the Empty Chair in Georgia and a link to an article at GR (the original not Doc’s parody) about the recently removed candidate. Judy needs to file an update to the court that the removal was overturned in the GA courts. This is going to be fun on 6/18.

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/268539121/Judy-v-Obama-Judgement-for-A-Default-U-S-Supreme-Court

  29. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 13, 2015 at 2:36 pm #

    I’ve been really busy so it took me time to get to this. Here is my phone call to Mike Zullo Moore’s number. I look forward to your comments.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjbOIIuEYJk&feature=youtu.be

  30. avatar
    CRJ2016 June 13, 2015 at 3:02 pm #

    The thing I really love about you guys is that you eat the same food as I do. Pickles are great on hamburgers.

    The Bet? Well, since we have already purchased 18 watermelons we plan to eat the hearts out of in the BBQ Festivities come the 18th, we can’t take the bet. We are interested in the Farm though.

    If Judy wins, you each pay $100 as a friendly contribution towards the Campaign, since none of you stood up for Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal in the invitation for a Amici, we understand times are tough?

    We would hope for your vote also come 2016 as your other choice has been pre-selected and will cause you much more salivating and foaming than Birthers could have dreamed of. Hey, in the end, we’re family.

  31. avatar
    Arthur B. June 13, 2015 at 3:32 pm #

    CRJ2016: If Judy wins, you each pay $100…

    And? If he loses?

    Come on, make it good, and let’s see it in writing!

  32. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 13, 2015 at 3:45 pm #

    Judy seems to have been missed by the clue bus yet again. He is going to the SCt to get his well deserved slapdown by all the preceding courts who have laughed at him and denied his suit overturned, AND IT ISN’T GOING TO HAPPEN. He isn’t re-litigating his POS suit, he is asking for all those other courts to be reversed, and there is no way it is going to happen. There is no default at that level. The other courts rulings are what is being challenged, and Obama’s side saw no reason to further gild the lily as the previous courts had all spoken with suffic8ient eloquence as to what a POS the suit, and by definition Cody, was. The 16ths coming, and then buh bye POS.

  33. avatar
    Rickey June 13, 2015 at 4:57 pm #

    CRJ2016:
    The thing I really love about you guys is that you eat the same food as I do. Pickles are great on hamburgers.

    You said:

    And Rickey left out that fact SCOTUS in those three cases asked for a Response “After the Original Conference” Rickey …Ticky Tembo. Whose being dishonest?

    I then showed that in each of those cases the request for a response was made PRIOR to the original conference.

    You asked who was being dishonest. Do you have your answer now?

    Incidentally, I don’t care for pickles on hamburgers.

  34. avatar
    Rickey June 13, 2015 at 4:59 pm #

    Arthur B.: And? If he loses?

    Come on, make it good, and let’s see it in writing!

    It sounds to me as if he is playing “Heads I win, Tails you lose.”

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 13, 2015 at 6:12 pm #

    But I do like dill pickles on roast beef and bread & butter pickles on chicken. A little sweet relish on a hot dog works too.

    Rickey: Incidentally, I don’t care for pickles on hamburgers.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 13, 2015 at 6:16 pm #

    Here’s the bet: I will contribute $100 to your 2016 presidential campaign (must accept PayPal) if the Supreme Court grants you cert this month. And if you don’t get cert, you must agree to come on this blog and say; “I lost the bet.” OK?

    CRJ2016: If Judy wins, you each pay $100 as a friendly contribution towards the Campaign, since none of you stood up for Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal in the invitation for a Amici, we understand times are tough?

  37. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 13, 2015 at 7:39 pm #

    CRJ2016:
    The thing I really love about you guys is that you eat the same food as I do. Pickles are great on hamburgers.

    The Bet? Well, since we have already purchased 18 watermelons we plan to eat the hearts out of in the BBQ Festivities come the 18th, we can’t take the bet. We are interested in the Farm though.

    If Judy wins, you each pay $100 as a friendly contribution towards the Campaign, since none of you stood up for Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal in the invitation for a Amici, we understand times are tough?

    We would hope for your vote also come 2016 as your other choice has been pre-selected and will cause you much more salivating and foaming than Birthers could have dreamed of. Hey, in the end, we’re family.

    And if you lose you pay $100 to the kapiolani hospital as a charity for each losing case a birther has filed in court.

  38. avatar
    Reality Check June 13, 2015 at 7:44 pm #

    Cody is a complete moron. JY john is smarter than Judy.

  39. avatar
    Reality Check June 13, 2015 at 7:49 pm #

    I won’t let the schmuck off that easy. If his case gets cert I will contribute $1000 to his campaign via PayPal. If it is denied he has to contribute $1000 to the Fogbow. Settlement must be no later than July 1, 2015. He must formally accept the wager here.

    Dr. Conspiracy: And if you don’t get cert, you must agree to come on this blog and say; “I lost the bet.” OK?

  40. avatar
    Northland10 June 13, 2015 at 8:39 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    But I do like dill pickles on roast beef and bread & butter pickles on chicken. A little sweet relish on a hot dog works too.

    The only proper dog:

    Poppy-seed bun, yellow mustard, white onion, sweet pickle relish with mint, sport peppers, tomatoes, kosher dill pickle spear, celery salt

  41. avatar
    Keith June 14, 2015 at 3:08 am #

    Northland10: The only proper dog:

    Poppy-seed bun, yellow mustard, white onion, sweet pickle relish with mint, sport peppers, tomatoes, kosher dill pickle spear, celery salt

    Remember the movie “Crocodile Dundee”? Remember the part where the “city girl in the outback” is shown some Morton Bay Bugs and she says “you eat that?” And then they go to New York and Dundee is shown a street vendor hot dog with the works and he says “you eat that”? (The film is full of comparisons like that).

    The first time I saw it it was in a theatre in Melbourne. When that hot dog scene came on I said very loudly, (and totally without thinking what I was doing), “YEAH! NOW THAT”S A HOT DOG”. Everybody turned to look at me, and my wife broke two of my ribs with her elbow.

    The point is you just can’t get a good hot dog in Australia. They are universally simmered in luke warm water for 18 hours before being dumped in to a bain-marie to be left overnight so they can be positive that there is absolutely no taste and no nutritional value what-so-ever. If you are really lucky you can get some sugared up tomato-y glop they call BBQ sauce to put on it.

    I threw a 4th of July party one year when it fell on a Saturday and people kept coming up to me saying “Gee, I never thought of grilling hot dogs on the BBQ” or “Sauerkraut? What a great idea for a hot dog”. Pathetic.

  42. avatar
    Reality Check June 14, 2015 at 11:01 am #

    Hands down the best hot dogs I ever had were from Ted’s Hot Dogs in Buffalo. NY. If you are ever in that area it’s worth driving out of the way to find one of their restaurants. And yes, they are grilled on charcoal.

    Keith: I threw a 4th of July party one year when it fell on a Saturday and people kept coming up to me saying “Gee, I never thought of grilling hot dogs on the BBQ” or “Sauerkraut? What a great idea for a hot dog”. Pathetic.

  43. avatar
    donna June 14, 2015 at 11:35 pm #

    NAH, the best “hot dogs” are in RI

    ‘America’s Classic’ Hot Wieners Are Worth A Trek To Rhode Island Alone

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/hot-wiener-rhode-island_n_4934863.html

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 15, 2015 at 1:17 am #

    I am partial to yellow mustard and cole slaw on mine.

    donna: NAH, the best “hot dogs” are in RI

  45. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 15, 2015 at 2:56 am #

    So, I noticed that Cody is claiming to run for 2016 Presidential election. In four years, he hasn’t learn his lesson. No one is going to vote for a convicted felon, who seems to slip further into madness by the day, to the highest office in the land. That said, if it is indeed a serious effort, why is he still wasting his time going after Obama, instead of campaign?

  46. avatar
    Dave B. June 15, 2015 at 3:28 am #

    Well then you never had a Sonoran Hot Dog, like for instance from El Güero Canelo:

    http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/best-sonoran-hot-dogs/BestOf?oid=3153264
    http://www.elguerocanelo.com

    A passable Instructable for making your own:

    http://www.instructables.com/id/Sonoran-Hot-Dog/

    But don’t forget the salsa Huichol!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEEQN26yMvQ

    Northland10: The only proper dog:

    Poppy-seed bun, yellow mustard, white onion, sweet pickle relish with mint, sport peppers, tomatoes, kosher dill pickle spear, celery salt

  47. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 15, 2015 at 4:03 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: That said, if it is indeed a serious effort, why is he still wasting his time going after Obama, instead of campaign?

    Because he thinks if he’s the one to topple the usurrpurr, hundreds of millions will vote for him. In other words, he knows pretty well he stands no chance of winning otherwise.

  48. avatar
    bovril June 15, 2015 at 5:21 am #

    He is just as delusional as Chistopher Strunk and his “Natural Born Citizen Party”

    http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=P60007010&tabIndex=3

    Pushed (and roundly ignored by the inmates) by a sock puppet account (I am assuming)…Sytemictreason, over at Gerbil Report

    http://intensedebate.com/profiles/systemictreason/1

  49. avatar
    Keith June 15, 2015 at 5:24 am #

    Dave B.:
    Well then you never had a Sonoran Hot Dog, like for instance from El Güero Canelo:

    http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/best-sonoran-hot-dogs/BestOf?oid=3153264
    http://www.elguerocanelo.com

    A passable Instructable for making your own:

    http://www.instructables.com/id/Sonoran-Hot-Dog/

    But don’t forget the salsa Huichol!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEEQN26yMvQ

    Next time I’m in Tucson I’ll hit up El Guero, but I left town before they started up so I dunno about this Sonora Dog mejunje.

    Personally, I still dream of Pat’s Chilli dogs.

  50. avatar
    Keith June 15, 2015 at 9:05 am #

    I should have added a link or two about Pat’s for the non-Tucsonans in the crowd.

    Here’s some comments left on Yelp. I think it captures the love/hate relationship Tucson has with Pat’s pretty well. Its dive, yeah; but its a GREAT dive.

  51. avatar
    Keith June 15, 2015 at 9:17 am #

    I found another ode to Pat’s Chilli Dogs after I hit enter. Sorry for the spam like infatuation, but my homesickness has been triggered…

    Wikimapia: Pat’s Drive-In

    They say its been an institution for neary 40 years but that is crap. It’s been an instutition for probably 60 years. Before I was in High School (a looooong time ago) they had at least three locations (they’ve apparently dropped back to one). The one on Ajo Road was within walking distance of my school and it was our hangout.

  52. avatar
    donna June 15, 2015 at 11:12 am #

    let’s see …. NOT that i’m competitive

    18) El Guero Canelo, Tucson, Ariz.: Sonoran Dog

    17) Ted’s, Buffalo, NY: With Hot Chili Sauce

    6) Olneyville N.Y. System, North Providence, R.I.: NY System Dog

    http://www.thedailymeal.com/america-s-50-best-hot-dogs-slideshow

    Doc, you’ll have to hold a “dawg-off – every drive back to NY from RI includes a bag-full of “belly-busters” which we then warm in the microwave and eat during the week

    “The New York System dog is a regional specialty: small franks (in this case, from Little Rhody) are steamed, placed atop a steamed bun, and topped with a cumin-heavy meat sauce, yellow mustard, diced onions, and celery salt. You’re going to want to order a few of these, because they’re small and addictive (see how many of them the counterman can balance on his arm). The “wiener sauce” is so popular that people have been requesting the recipe for years”

    they seem to date back to 1927 or earlier

    there are other items on our “little rhody” must haves such as Del’s Frozen Lemonade, quahogs, stuffies, clam cakes, doughboys, johnnycakes, “pizzer” and other italian specialties, etc

    The Big Flavors Of Little Rhode Island

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/13/dining/the-big-flavors-of-little-rhode-island.html?pagewanted=1

  53. avatar
    Rickey June 15, 2015 at 11:16 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Because he thinks if he’s the one to topple the usurrpurr, hundreds of millions will vote for him. In other words, he knows pretty well he stands no chance of winning otherwise.

    In case Judy is still lurking here, I checked and there are 177 cases on the conference schedule for 6/18.

    https://certpool.com/conferences/2015-06-18

    In 146 of those cases, a waiver of the right to respond was filed. SCOTUS has requested Briefs in Opposition in just six of the cases in which waivers were filed. SCOTUS will not rule on the cert petitions in those six cases because the responses aren’t due until next month.

    Thus we can see that of the 177 cases on the conference schedule, 140 (including Judy’s) have been dead listed. Six are awaiting responses, which leaves a pool of just 31 cases which are in the running for being granted cert.

  54. avatar
    Arthur B. June 15, 2015 at 4:13 pm #

    Here’s a thought — wouldn’t it be entertaining if a bunch of people started responding to surveys by declaring themselves Trump supporters, just to be sure he makes it into all the debates?

  55. avatar
    justlw June 15, 2015 at 5:09 pm #

    I don’t know how old the Snopes article this tweet links to is (they seem to be all over the map on formatting these days, so things I normally expect to be there like dates sometimes aren’t), but it turns out to be very Orly-heavy. Although it comprises stories we probably all know by heart, it’s still a nice stroll down memory lane.

    Has a federal court formally charged President Obama with treason? http://t.co/kVnt83LMxw pic.twitter.com/iL9Dkt0QS1— snopes.com (@snopes) June 15, 2015

  56. avatar
    CRJ June 15, 2015 at 11:29 pm #

    Good work Rickey.. You know I was just teasing you about being … Never Mind. You know I actually want to have a big BBQ with all ya all?

    Now to attend to Business.

    👉 FIRST Doc. , your on. Just don’t make me eat cat sh#t. If I’m done I’m done. . actually no one wants to quit at the top of their game, but this is one cat that’s willing to, UNLESS something comes up of course.

    👉 Second Point Rickey’s hit and researching skills I might have to hire him if the Camp goes into 2nd Hear. Of course if the Court hears the Case we are expecting 1 Billion the first week, and Rubio, Cruz, and Jindal to quit.

    That’s four balls in one swing..and no one’s ever done that! Maybe 1.2 B. Jebs Q will hide in dismay. Clinton’s only hope then would be to join w Amici or bow out and link up. Maybe she leaves Bill for interior decorating.. the W.H.? The position is open. Nah, she’s got enough foreign money in the C-Foundation to dine with Romney now?
    Her memory of hard times is fading fast imitating the Rich & Furious cat.

    Now listen and listen well my favorite fellow Roasting hotdoggers.. Rickey: Out of the 177 you left out how many had Obama’s name in them? And where is mine camped?

    111th pretty much incognito right? And there’s only 1 with Obama’s name on it. What does that tell you? 1111 Think of it this way.. The Crowd at the 🏈 Stadium chanting one, one , one. one.. ?

    You see in your calculations you also forgot the POST.. “Is Obama a Flight risk?”

    Now, you didn’t REALLY think did you if SCOTUS wanted a Response they’d print it on the same Docket listed for the public did you? Are you Out of your minds? Would you?

    But it did confirm for me your sincerely out of the loop. Big BBQ COMING UP! Gotta run its been fun!

  57. avatar
    bovril June 16, 2015 at 8:54 am #

    Not sure if others have caught it yet but allegedly the Birther Tribble Mobility Device, Donnie Combover will officially announce his candidacy for the US Presidency at 11:00 am Eastern time

    The fun part will be that apparently he will also disclosed his financials (for some values of self serving inaccuracy)….. Wonder if he will announce his ‘assets’ and neglect to list his liabilities..

  58. avatar
    justlw June 16, 2015 at 10:22 am #

    bovril: Wonder if he will announce his ‘assets’ and neglect to list his liabilities..

    According to FiveThirtyEight, his biggest liability is that most people in his own party think he’s scum. And of course, they’ve got the data to back it up.

    http://53eig.ht/1Fkxx8Y

  59. avatar
    Arthur B. June 16, 2015 at 11:27 am #

    All right, the Donald is in!

    Now let me repeat — wouldn’t it be entertaining if a bunch of people started responding to surveys by declaring themselves Trump supporters, just to be sure he makes it into all the debates?

  60. avatar
    Rickey June 16, 2015 at 11:40 am #

    Arthur B.:
    All right, the Donald is in!

    Now let me repeat — wouldn’t it be entertaining if a bunch of people started responding to surveys by declaring themselves Trump supporters, just to be sure he makes it into all the debates?

    If I get a call from a pollster, I’m on board with the Donald!

  61. avatar
    donna June 16, 2015 at 12:54 pm #

    Mark Levin Confronted About Article II Presidential Eligibility Requirement

    Caller to Levin: I’m calling about Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution… eligibility for the presidency…

    -SHUT DOWN-

    Levin to Caller: Thank you for your call! Let’s move along… That’s not what you told the call screener what you wanting to speak…. And I’m really not in the mood to deal with the birthers. Whether it’s Ted Cruz or Obama. Call Alex Jones!

  62. avatar
    Jim June 16, 2015 at 3:35 pm #

    Arthur B.
    All right, the Donald is in!

    Now let me repeat — wouldn’t it be entertaining if a bunch of people started responding to surveys by declaring themselves Trump supporters, just to be sure he makes it into all the debates?

    ==============================================================
    No real need, he’s already polling in the top 10…
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

    And his name recognition alone will keep him there over less known candidates. I did like the DNC’s response to the Donald’s announcement:

    “Today, Donald Trump became the second major Republican candidate to announce for president in two days,” DNC national press secretary Holly Shulman said in a statement. “He adds some much-needed seriousness that has previously been lacking from the GOP field, and we look forward hearing more about his ideas for the nation.”

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/democrats-had-brilliant-response-donald-155300631.html

  63. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 16, 2015 at 4:06 pm #

    And, Lord knows, we don’t need Communist Cuba’s Ted Cruz ascending the American throne.

    Jim:
    Arthur B.
    All right, the Donald is in!

    Now let me repeat — wouldn’t it be entertaining if a bunch of people started responding to surveys by declaring themselves Trump supporters, just to be sure he makes it into all the debates?

    ==============================================================
    No real need, he’s already polling in the top 10…
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

    And his name recognition alone will keep him there over less known candidates.I did like the DNC’s response to the Donald’s announcement:

    “Today, Donald Trump became the second major Republican candidate to announce for president in two days,” DNC national press secretary Holly Shulman said in a statement. “He adds some much-needed seriousness that has previously been lacking from the GOP field, and we look forward hearing more about his ideas for the nation.”

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/democrats-had-brilliant-response-donald-155300631.html

  64. avatar
    Rickey June 16, 2015 at 11:59 pm #

    Another day comes to a close, and SCOTUS still has not called for a response in Judy v. Obama.

    In other news, Judy has announced that he is going to be interviewed by Mike Volin on Thursday evening.

  65. avatar
    Lupin June 17, 2015 at 5:26 am #

    According to something i just saw on BR Phil Berg has finally been disbarred.

    Why not Apuzzo and Orly?

    One can only hope!

  66. avatar
    bovril June 17, 2015 at 5:58 am #

    Berg had actual real live clients whom he actually harmed by being a wholly ineffectual and incompetent lawyer.

    Oily and Failo the Putz, no real clients, no real harm, never will be mistaken for real lawyers.

  67. avatar
    Northland10 June 17, 2015 at 7:30 am #

    Lupin:
    According to something i just saw on BR Phil Berg has finally been disbarred.

    Why not Apuzzo and Orly?

    One can only hope!

    For completeness. He was suspended for 2 years which was set to end in June or July. He had made some sort of mention that he was going to retire. The Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board now has this for Berg:

    STATEMENT OF RESIGNATION
    DB No. Date Comments
    91 DB 2015 06/04/2015 VERIFIED STATEMENT RESIGNATION SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT

    Disbarred
    DB No. Date Comments
    91 DB 2015 06/16/2015 Disbarred on Consent

  68. avatar
    Lupin June 17, 2015 at 7:52 am #

    Maybe he’ll run for Congress now? 🙂

  69. avatar
    Reality Check June 17, 2015 at 9:09 am #

    Could be. He tried running for a judgeship a few years ago and came in a distant 6th in the primary as I recall.

    I always thought Berg was just lazy. In 2008 he came up with the Obama was born in Kenya narrative and never changed anything in that story. If you listened to his interviews they all sounded like he was reading from the same script.

    One of Berg’s followers wrote on the Fogbow that Berg raked in tens of thousands of dollars in donations when he was the leading Birther attorney. I think Orly has always been jealous that Berg was able to cash in a lot more than she ever did.

    Orly would have been disbarred a long time ago if she actually had clients. She got her law license because she was too cheap to pay real attorneys when she was in the real estate business. Orly saw Berg getting all the fame and money in 2008 and figured she could do that too. As with most scams it is always key to be the first one to run it.

    Lupin:
    Maybe he’ll run for Congress now?

  70. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 17, 2015 at 9:44 am #

    *is having an ‘ah ha’ moment*

    Quote:

    “In 2008 he came up with the Obama was born in Kenya narrative and never changed anything in that story.”

    To disclose the Obama forgery would mean disclosing the truth about the Bush and Clinton drug lord families.

    What really happened to Joe Biden’s son, I wonder, because I don’t believe he died from a brain tumor or whatever they claimed it was?

    Reality Check: In 2008 he came up with the Obama was born in Kenya narrative and never changed anything in that story.

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 17, 2015 at 11:14 am #

    New article at Gerbil Report(tm). Maricopa County may raise taxes to pay Arpaio legal bills:

    http://www.gerbilreport.com/2015/06/county-raises-taxes-to-pay-arpaios.html

  72. avatar
    Rickey June 17, 2015 at 11:32 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I’ve been really busy so it took me time to get to this. Here is my phone call to Mike Zullo Moore’s number. I look forward to your comments.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjbOIIuEYJk&feature=youtu.be

    Mrs. Moore obviously didn’t know what you were talking about when you referred to her husband as “Mike Zullo Moore.”

    Why didn’t you just ask to speak with Moore? As his wife told you, he doesn’t discuss the details of his work with her.

    And why didn’t you ask her if he spends time in Arizona?

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 17, 2015 at 11:33 am #

    Orly had clients: Pamela BarnettConnie Rhodes and Stephan Cook. Both were harmed, albeit not in California.

    bovril:
    Berg had actual real live clients whom he actually harmed by being a wholly ineffectual and incompetent lawyer.

    Oily and Failo the Putz, no real clients, no real harm, never will be mistaken for real lawyers.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 17, 2015 at 11:35 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I’ve been really busy so it took me time to get to this. Here is my phone call to Mike Zullo Moore’s number. I look forward to your comments.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjbOIIuEYJk&feature=youtu.be

    So you wasted time on his wife instead of just talking to Mike Moore himself. What a waste of time.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 17, 2015 at 11:36 am #

    Nancy R Owens: What really happened to Joe Biden’s son, I wonder, because I don’t believe he died from a brain tumor or whatever they claimed it was?

    Didn’t Nancy Ruth Owens kill Beau Biden?

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 17, 2015 at 12:45 pm #

    I just thought he never got over his brother’s death.

    Reality Check: I always thought Berg was just lazy.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 17, 2015 at 12:53 pm #

    Do you have any historical precedents?

    CRJ: Now, you didn’t REALLY think did you if SCOTUS wanted a Response they’d print it on the same Docket listed for the public did you? Are you Out of your minds? Would you?

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 17, 2015 at 1:13 pm #

    I think it was Abraham Lincoln.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Didn’t Nancy Ruth Owens kill Beau Biden?

  79. avatar
    bob June 17, 2015 at 1:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Orly had clients: Pamela Barnett and Stephan Cook. Both were harmed, albeit not in California.

    In your opinion, how did Taitz’s representation of Barnett harm her?

    I agree someone (likely Taitz) gave Cook some profoundly bad advice, which did lead to him losing his security clearance and then his job.

  80. avatar
    Reality Check June 17, 2015 at 2:06 pm #

    I said Berg was lazy but I had forgotten he did put together probably the single most successful Birther rally. I think he had over 20 people.

    Wonkette said five though.

  81. avatar
    Rickey June 17, 2015 at 2:09 pm #

    CRJ:

    Rickey: Out of the 177 you left out how many had Obama’s name in them? And where is mine camped? 111th pretty much incognito right? And there’s only 1 with Obama’s name on it. What does that tell you?

    I’m not sure what you point is supposed to be, but you missed one:

    Donald White v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al., No. 14-9705

    Yours is camped right in the middle of the other cases which have been dead filed, which is where it belongs.

    Now, you didn’t REALLY think did you if SCOTUS wanted a Response they’d print it on the same Docket listed for the public did you? Are you Out of your minds? Would you?

    Can you cite a case in which SCOTUS ever requested a response but didn’t update the docket to show that a request had been made? You really believe that there is a secret docket which the public cannot see?

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 17, 2015 at 2:36 pm #

    Sorry, I meant Connie Rhodes.

    http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2009/09/19/844811_letter-signed-capt-connie-rhodes.html?rh=1

    bob: In your opinion, how did Taitz’s representation of Barnett harm her?

  83. avatar
    Rickey June 17, 2015 at 3:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Sorry, I meant Connie Rhodes.

    http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2009/09/19/844811_letter-signed-capt-connie-rhodes.html?rh=1

    She’s no longer in the Army, or at least not on active duty. She now goes by her maiden name and she is a surgeon at a hospital in Pennsylvania.

    I don’t know if she got divorced or if she changed her name to get the stink of “Connie Rhodes birther” off of her. As “Connie Rhodes” she was trashed for her birthing on some medical doctor review sites.

  84. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 17, 2015 at 4:08 pm #

    It sucks that I’m right and your wrong, doesn’t it? I specifically asked about the birth certificate investigation. I clearly told her I was the Obama birth certificate forger. She clearly told me that it was none of my business. *g*

    Rickey: Mrs. Moore obviously didn’t know what you were talking about when you referred to her husband as “Mike Zullo Moore.”

    Why didn’t you just ask to speak with Moore? As his wife told you, he doesn’t discuss the details of his work with her.

    And why didn’t you ask her if he spends time in Arizona?

  85. avatar
    Reality Check June 17, 2015 at 4:23 pm #

    Had the SCOTUS decided to request a response Judy as a party would have been notified would he not? Secret Docket? 😆

    Rickey: Can you cite a case in which SCOTUS ever requested a response but didn’t update the docket to show that a request had been made? You really believe that there is a secret docket which the public cannot see?

  86. avatar
    Rickey June 17, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    It sucks that I’m right and your wrong, doesn’t it? I specifically asked about the birth certificate investigation. I clearly told her I was the Obama birth certificate forger. She clearly told me that it was none of my business. *g*

    What she said was “I have no clue. I don’t ask him what he does at work.”

    What she meant by her second response is that whatever he may be working on is none of your business. But she previously said that she has “no clue” what he is working on, so she didn’t confirm anything except that you had the right phone number. And she certainly had no idea what you were talking about when you referred to him as “Mike Zullo Moore.”

    Once again – why didn’t you ask to speak with Mike Moore?

  87. avatar
    Rickey June 17, 2015 at 5:17 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Had the SCOTUS decided to request a response Judy as a party would have been notified would he not? Secret Docket?

    One would think so.

    When SCOTUS calls for a response, typically the response is due about a month after the request, which usually means that the conference will be rescheduled. If SCOTUS called for a response in Judy’s case, it would not be due until next month, so the court surely would have notified Judy that his petition will not be ruled upon tomorrow.

    Of course, it WILL be ruled upon tomorrow, but the result will not be to Judy’s liking.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 17, 2015 at 5:19 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    It sucks that I’m right and your wrong, doesn’t it? I specifically asked about the birth certificate investigation. I clearly told her I was the Obama birth certificate forger. She clearly told me that it was none of my business. *g*

    You haven’t been right a single day of your life. You asked her about an investigation that her husband wasn’t even involved in. She probably had no clue what you were talking about.

  89. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 17, 2015 at 5:48 pm #

    They are one and the same as confirmed by Mike Volin in this first video on my LiveLink page:

    http://www.liveleak.com/c/Nancy_Owens

    Also not, she did not, at any time during the conversation, provide me with a contact number, or any other form of assistance such as taking down my phone number and/or address.

    She just simply declared, in a very haughty and elitist tone, the birth certificate that I forged , “none of (my) business.”

    She should have been thrilled to take my call. But, she wasn’t.

    She got caught in the conspiracy, didn’t she?

    Rickey: What she said was “I have no clue. I don’t ask him what he does at work.”

    What she meant by her second response is that whatever he may be working on is none of your business. But she previously said that she has “no clue” what he is working on, so she didn’t confirm anything except that you had the right phone number. And she certainly had no idea what you were talking about when you referred to him as “Mike Zullo Moore.”

    Once again – why didn’t you ask to speak with Mike Moore?

  90. avatar
    ellen June 17, 2015 at 8:09 pm #

    For those who are amused by debating the Constitutional claims of birthers (I call it the “you gotta have two citizen parents” theory), Mario Apuzzo has emerged again and is spouting his legalistic claims over at:

    http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/03/05/ted-cruz-and-natural-born-citizenship-a-belated-reply-to-mario-apuzzo/?hubRefSrc=email&utm_source=lfemail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=lfnotification#lf_comment=329797692

    Those who may wish to knock him down again can.

  91. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 17, 2015 at 8:22 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: They are one and the same as confirmed by Mike Volin in this first video on my LiveLink page:

    Mike Volin is a moron he wouldn’t know any better.

    Nancy R Owens: Also not, she did not, at any time during the conversation, provide me with a contact number, or any other form of assistance such as taking down my phone number and/or address.

    So? Why would someone provide a crazy person who randomly calls people without any real reason.

    No she had no idea why the heck you were calling. You’re reading too much into people ignoring you.

  92. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 17, 2015 at 9:35 pm #

    Arthur B.: All right, the Donald is in!

    Now let me repeat — wouldn’t it be entertaining if a bunch of people started responding to surveys by declaring themselves Trump supporters, just to be sure he makes it into all the debates?

    —–
    Maybe he’ll pay you to do it. It hasn’t been confirmed yet, but The Hollywood Reporter is reporting that Trump hired actors to appear at his announcement. They are reporting that he sent out an email that said in part:

    “We are looking to cast people for the event to wear t-shirts and carry signs and help cheer him in support of his announcement.

    We understand this is not a traditional ‘background job,’ but we believe acting comes in all forms and this is inclusive of that school of thought.”

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/donald-trump-campaign-offered-actors-803161

  93. avatar
    Rickey June 17, 2015 at 10:05 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:

    Also not, she did not, at any time during the conversation, provide me with a contact number, or any other form of assistance such as taking down my phone number and/or address.

    Did you ask her to have him call you back? Not according to what I heard.

    Here is how a normal person would have conducted the phone conversation:

    Phone Rings.

    Mrs. Moore: Hello?
    Normal Person: Is this Mike Moore’s residence?
    Mrs. Moore: This is his house.
    Normal Person: Could I speak with him, please.
    Mrs. Moore: He isn’t home now.
    Normal Person: Could you have him call me when he gets home?
    or
    Normal Person: Could you tell me a good time to call him?

    You never asked to speak with him and she didn’t hang up on you.

    She just simply declared, in a very haughty and elitist tone, the birth certificate that I forged , “none of (my) business.”

    She had already told you that she had “no idea” what her husband is working on.

    Salient questions which you didn’t ask:

    Is your husband also known as Mike Zullo?

    Does your husband spend time working in Arizona?

    Does your husband know Joe Arpaio?

    But you didn’t ask any of those questions, because you knew what the answers would be. And you didn’t ask to speak with Mike Moore because you knew that he would shred your insane theories.

  94. avatar
    Reality Check June 17, 2015 at 10:57 pm #

    Oh we have been tag team beating up Mario there for weeks. Epectitus has some classics there.

    ellen: Those who may wish to knock him down again can.

  95. avatar
    Reality Check June 17, 2015 at 11:02 pm #

    I suppose this means your are running away from my real wager on whether your case gets cert or not? It isn’t, you know it isn’t and that’s why you won’t take the wager.

    On top of your game? Only if your game is being a nutburger.

    CRJ: 👉 FIRST Doc. , your on. Just don’t make me eat cat sh#t. If I’m done I’m done. . actually no one wants to quit at the top of their game, but this is one cat that’s willing to, UNLESS something comes up of course.

  96. avatar
    Reality Check June 17, 2015 at 11:16 pm #

    Mr. Judy

    As a reporter I have a question or two for you.

    Why did you choose to not pay the filing fee for your case when you filed at SCOTUS? Are you really too poor to pay? Don’t you have enough supporters to donate the filing fee? Instead you chose to have the taxpayers foot the bill. Why?

  97. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 18, 2015 at 1:13 am #

    CRJ: ust don’t make me eat cat sh#t.

    Why the hell would your mind even go there?
    Never mind, I’ve read your blog, you’re a complete loon.

  98. avatar
    dr. kenneth noisewater June 18, 2015 at 7:44 am #

    CRJ: Just don’t make me eat cat sh#t.

    You are what you eat. I see you’re employing the trump word salad tactic of argument

  99. avatar
    dr. kenneth noisewater June 18, 2015 at 7:47 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Why the hell would your mind even go there?
    Never mind, I’ve read your blog, you’re a complete loon.

    Let’s not forget all his bad photoshop jobs. I already had posted the generalísimo cody picture

  100. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 18, 2015 at 8:15 am #

    If my husband was working on the USA President’s forgeries and had been doing this for nine years or so, you’d better believe I’d know about it.

    Nice try, though.

    Rickey: Did you ask her to have him call you back? Not according to what I heard.

    Here is how a normal person would have conducted the phone conversation:

    Phone Rings.

    Mrs. Moore: Hello?
    Normal Person: Is this Mike Moore’s residence?
    Mrs. Moore: This is his house.
    Normal Person: Could I speak with him, please.
    Mrs. Moore: He isn’t home now.
    Normal Person: Could you have him call me when he gets home?
    or
    Normal Person: Could you tell me a good time to call him?

    You never asked to speak with him and she didn’t hang up on you.

    She had already told you that she had “no idea” what her husband is working on.

    Salient questions which you didn’t ask:

    Is your husband also known as Mike Zullo?

    Does your husband spend time working in Arizona?

    Does your husband know Joe Arpaio?

    But you didn’t ask any of those questions, because you knew what the answers would be. And you didn’t ask to speak with Mike Moore because you knew that he would shred your insane theories.

  101. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 18, 2015 at 8:28 am #

    OK, listen to this conversation I had with the Hendry County Sheriff’s Department/Mike Moore line transfer:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9s_b6YuZ7Q

    Rickey: Did you ask her to have him call you back? Not according to what I heard.

  102. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2015 at 9:19 am #

    There was no forgery.

    Nancy R Owens:
    If my husband was working on the USA President’s forgeries and had been doing this for nine years or so, you’d better believe I’d know about it.

    Nice try, though.

  103. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 18, 2015 at 9:31 am #

    Yes, there was.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    There was no forgery.

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2015 at 10:04 am #

    A claim which you have never substantiated.

    Nancy R Owens:
    Yes, there was.

  105. avatar
    Punchmaster via Mobile June 18, 2015 at 10:27 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Yes, there was.

    Your “proof” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

  106. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 18, 2015 at 10:32 am #

    Isn’t that Mike ZulloMoore and Arapio’s job upon my reporting this having taken in thousands upon thousands of dollars? Not to mention an untold amount of tax dollars that we all pay to fund these so-called “investigators?”

    Am I missing something here?

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    A claim which you have never substantiated.

  107. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 18, 2015 at 10:44 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Yes, there was.

    Nope there wasn’t a forgery. You’ve never submitted any proof to back up a single one of your claims.

  108. avatar
    bovril June 18, 2015 at 10:46 am #

    The positive things about Nancy are that she…..

    Isn’t as bigoted as Mad Old Orly
    Is less supercilious than Jerome Corsi
    Does better photo’s than BSE
    Is almost as coherent as Falcon
    Has bigger balls than Mike Volin (have you ever seen his wide angle stance in any of his photo’s…..)
    Uses better grammatical structure than A Boy named Judy
    Is more monomaniacal than John
    Has a marginally tighter grasp on reality than Theresa”Mad” Cao
    Is less shouty than Alex Jones
    Is the soul of brevity compared to Falio the Putz.
    And……drumroll please…. hard as it is to believe has fewer murder fetish fantasies than Park McGraw

    https://disqus.com/by/parkmcgraw/

  109. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 18, 2015 at 10:47 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    OK, listen to this conversation I had with the Hendry County Sheriff’s Department/Mike Moore line transfer:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9s_b6YuZ7Q

    Yeah you talked to an operator who we can’t even understand what they’re saying because your quality sucks. You also ask a stupid question about if Mike Moore has done an investigation on birth certificates which weren’t actually forged. Mike Moore also isn’t investigating that. Besides what would an operator be able to tell you about what Moore is actually working on? So let me see you call people so far removed from what you’re looking for on purpose because they don’t know anything.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 18, 2015 at 10:48 am #

    Nancy R Owens: If my husband was working on the USA President’s forgeries and had been doing this for nine years or so, you’d better believe I’d know about it.

    Nice try, though.

    Except her husband isn’t actually working on that. And Zullo hasn’t been working on it for “nine years or so”. Also Mike Moore isn’t Mike Zullo. Also didn’t you also claim you were married to him?

  111. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2015 at 10:56 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    If my husband was working on the USA President’s forgeries and had been doing this for nine years or so, you’d better believe I’d know about it.

    If she did know what her husband is working on, why would she share that information with a total stranger?

    Why didn’t you ask to speak with Mike? Your assignment was to question Mike, not his wife.

  112. avatar
    Dave B. June 18, 2015 at 11:07 am #

    Serial birfer over at the Snorin’ News:
    http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2015/150617/guested-quinn.html

  113. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2015 at 11:17 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    OK, listen to this conversation I had with the Hendry County Sheriff’s Department/Mike Moore line transfer:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9s_b6YuZ7Q

    The only thing that conversation proves is that you don’t know how to pose a question. Either that or you are deliberately trying to avoid speaking with Mike Moore while pretending to try to speak with him.

    Here is how a normal person would have gone about it.

    Phone rings
    Operator: Hendry County Sheriff’s Department
    Normal Person: I’d like to speak with Mike Moore, please.
    Operator: I’ll connect you with his office (transfers call)

    Upon getting the voice mail, a normal person would leave a coherent message:

    Normal Person: This is Nancy Ruth Owens, Please call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

    Why would you think that a switchboard operator would know what Mike Moore is working on? Or that the name Zullo would mean anything to her?

  114. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2015 at 11:25 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Except her husband isn’t actually working on that.And Zullo hasn’t been working on it for “nine years or so”.Also Mike Moore isn’t Mike Zullo.Also didn’t you also claim you were married to him?

    As I recall, she claimed that she had an affair with Mike Moore. But her stories change so much that it’s difficult to keep track.

  115. avatar
    Benji Franklin June 18, 2015 at 11:47 am #

    CRJ: Now listen and listen well my favorite fellow Roasting hotdoggers..

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Okay, Listeners! He joins us on the occasion of a tremendous victory at the Supreme Court that will bring down Obama once and for all! Let’s begin playing Birther Jeopardy today with Coalie Robot Juvie.”

    Nancy Owems: ”Karl, I’ll take FAMOUS PEOPLE I HAVE KILLED FOR $200”

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Okay, Nancy, again, that’s not one of our questions, and IT IS NOT YOUR TURN! Could you please play by the rules? ”

    Nancy Owems (brandishing a squirt gun and shouting):”Rules? Have you forgotten that I killed the Pillsbury Doughboy? Ole’ Three-First-Names and his bible bombs can have a turn later! I’m taking “FAMOUS PEOPLE I HAVE KILLED FOR $200” right now! Who were Ghandi, Jimmy Hoffa, JFK, John Lennon, JFK Jr.,Archduke Ferdinand, and Lee Harvey Oswald, ?” BUZZ! (audience laughter)

    Sheriff Our Pie Hole (mumbling into a CIA bug):”That Nancy Owems just kills me!”

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Nancy! I’m praying for you, and really ever’body in these Newnited States, to buy my latest book, ‘The Rabbi Who Fell Asleep Reading One of My Books And Woke Up A Christian’ , and maybe even buy three copies – they make a real nice pillow! Getting back to our game, next category please, Roody Code D Jooty?”

    Rooty Codeine Julie: “Yes Karl, because I’m a serious candidate, I’ll take EXPLODING BIBLES for $300”

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Okay, this Presidential candidate ran against Obama in 2012 on a ticket that included Ted Kaczynski,the Unabomber as VP!”

    Coldeze Rhomburt Julie: “I know this one ! Who is Sodee Robber JuhNootie?” BUZZ! (pause) PING!

    Tim Adumbs:” EVERYBODY in Hawaii knew this one! Who is Rudy Justice Judy?” BUZZ! (pause) PING!

    Donalt Rump: “Who is Wild Bill Cody?” BUZZ! (pause, then a donkey brays)

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Sorry Panel, all wrong! The correct answer was, ‘Who is Cozy Pobert Goofy’ . Okay, choosing our next category, the Reverend Moaning from Attilla the Hon Ministries, your category please!”

    Reverend Moaning: “Sure Karl, and, respecting the office, but not the murdering mooselum usurper Who Sane occupying it, I’ll go with BEST NON-EVIDENCE for $400?”

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Okay, for $400, the Framers would have considered an affirmative answer to what question, as proof that the answering candidate was ineligible to the Presidency?”

    Reverend Moaning: “What is, ‘Are you a whoring long-legged MackDaddy?’” BUZZ! (pause) PING!

    Joseph Fair Uh: ”What is, Did you stop beating your Usurper’s wife?” BUZZ! (pause) PING!

    Alan Kees: ”What is, ‘Are you the virtual spawn of Saul Alinsky and Satan?’” BUZZ!

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Sorry, Panel! We were looking for, ‘Do you support Freedom of Religion for anyone except Christians?’”

    Donalt Rump: “I’m a pretty smart guy, you know! I could win today if I ran with Oprah. Or…or even Abraham Lincoln. Is he dead? Does anybody know?” (a donkey brays)

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Okay, choose our next category, Mike Zoo Low – lead instigator for the Mia Copa Cold Case Pussie, Mike?”

    Mike Zoo Low:”Sure, Karl, I’m gonna have to choose ‘Survival Strategies for the Prison-bound’ for five bucks? “

    Karl Gall Oops! (giggling):”Uh, no, Mike –you must have heard my new ad on my answering Machine when you called in – that’s a member recruiting pamphlet idea that I picked up last week guesting on the Gym Bake Her Show! Just go ahead and pick a regular category. Take your time. We can wait. JUST maybe not another THREE YEARS!” (Rim shot is heard and charwoman snickers on audio)

    Mike Zoo Low:”Oh……..kayyyyyyyy, Monty, I’ll take NOT A SCINTELLA OF REAL EVIDENCE for $150,000!”

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Okay, but I’m not Monty, and the question is only worth $1000, so for that $1000, Mike Zoo Low, what is the question whose correct answer is, ‘THIS is the Birther expression used to describe a complete absence of evidence against Obama!”

    Mike Zoo Low:”What is ‘Universe-shattering proof ?” (cash register sound and audience applauds wildly)

    Bat Poone (yelling in the studio):”……and let’s remember that means proof of HIGH CRIMES and NOT a misdemeanor!”

    Karl Gall Oops!:”That’s the right answer! Great work, Mike! And great judicial work there, washed-up singer, Bat Poone! Now we continue with our next…”

    A.R Gnash (interrupting): “What is ‘Natural Law’? “BUZZ!

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Wait a minute, here, A.R., you were not invited onto the show, you didn’t pick a category and I didn’t even ask a new question yet……”

    A.R Gnash: “No problem, ‘Natural law’ is my answer to every question. I can see giant redwoods from my back porch. “

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Go climb one, Adrian! Climb a big one, okay? NOW, the only category left is, ‘He’s a Damn Usurper Is What’s Wrong!’ for $10 TO $100, -Disgraced one-time Lt.Col.Terrial Achin’, what dollar amount do you want to play for?”

    Disgraced former Lt.Col. Achin’: “First, I’d like to examine each of the bills and coins that I may be given as prizes, to make sure that they meet the personal minimal standards I myself have adopted for Constitutional United States legal tender.”

    Karl Gall Oops! (after an exasperated pause):”I can’t run a game show if every contestant can demand that I personally let them examine every piece of currency I hand them, and only agree it has value if it meets some personal standard of value that they privately cling to! Are you still nuts?”

    Disgraced former Lt.Col. Achin’: “Just show me every bill and coin in the country then, and if they satisfy me, I’ll honor my contract with your show. I’m trying to be reasonable. ”

    Karl Gall Oops! (quietly into his headset microphone) “ We need to get Lt.Col. Achin’ into Nancy Owems cage and turn out the lights. And gag him first so he doesn’t put her to sleep.”

    Karl Gall Oops!:” Okay, Listeners, Birther Jeopardy continues with Fobbert Colon Jooby – he’s chosen the category ‘Exploding Bibles’ again but for $800 this time! What question goes with the following answer, Fobbert? ‘Explosive experts and Biblical scholars agree on this Earthly manifestation of the biblical doctrinal expression, “God in three persons”.’

    Bobber Codeine Jooty:”That’s easy! Who is Bobber Codeine Jooty?” (Bing!)

  116. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 18, 2015 at 11:56 am #

    Rickey: As I recall, she claimed that she had an affair with Mike Moore. But her stories change so much that it’s difficult to keep track.

    No she previously said she had married Mike Zullo/Mike Moore/Random person.

  117. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2015 at 12:10 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: No she previously said she had married Mike Zullo/Mike Moore/Random person.

    And Sonny Barger. And a drug smuggler whose name escapes me at the moment.

  118. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2015 at 12:13 pm #

    In other news, the New York Times reports on the threat of right-wing terrorists, including militias, neo-Nazis, and sovereign cititzens.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html

  119. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 18, 2015 at 12:42 pm #

    I never said Sonny Barger. Apparently, I am married, unbeknownst to me, to his son which I do believe is possible based on certain events. Most notably, the murder of Pablo Escobar.

    Rickey: And Sonny Barger. And a drug smuggler whose name escapes me at the moment.

  120. avatar
    Rickey June 18, 2015 at 12:51 pm #

    Nancy R Owens:
    I never said Sonny Barger. Apparently, I am married, unbeknownst to me, to his son which I do believe is possible based on certain events. Most notably, the murder of Pablo Escobar.

    Sonny Barger has a son? That’s news to me. What is his son’s name?

  121. avatar
    Punchmaster via Mobile June 18, 2015 at 12:52 pm #

    The bodies are barely cold and BSE at Birther Report is already calling the church shooting a hoax. I never wanted to watch another human being savagely beaten within an inch of their life before, but here we are. I’d actually feel a bit glad if the incident left him permanently damaged. Call me twisted if you want, but I’ve had all I can take of that little sack of filth!

  122. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 18, 2015 at 1:20 pm #

    Sonny Barger, Jr. aka [redacted]

    Rickey: Sonny Barger has a son? That’s news to me. What is his son’s name?

  123. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 18, 2015 at 1:34 pm #

    Entertaining.

    Benji Franklin: Karl Gall Oops!: “Okay, Listeners! He joins us on the occasion of a tremendous victory at the Supreme Court that will bring down Obama once and for all! Let’s begin playing Birther Jeopardy today with Coalie Robot Juvie.”

    Nancy Owems: ”Karl, I’ll take FAMOUS PEOPLE I HAVE KILLED FOR $200”

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Okay, Nancy, again, that’s not one of our questions, and IT IS NOT YOUR TURN! Could you please play by the rules? ”

    Nancy Owems (brandishing a squirt gun and shouting):”Rules? Have you forgotten that I killed the Pillsbury Doughboy?Ole’ Three-First-Names and his bible bombs can have a turn later!I’mtaking “FAMOUS PEOPLE I HAVE KILLED FOR $200” right now!Who were Ghandi, Jimmy Hoffa,JFK, John Lennon, JFK Jr.,Archduke Ferdinand, and Lee Harvey Oswald, ?”BUZZ!(audience laughter)

    Sheriff Our Pie Hole (mumbling into a CIA bug):”That Nancy Owems just kills me!”

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Nancy!I’m praying for you, and really ever’body in these Newnited States, to buy my latest book, ‘The Rabbi Who Fell Asleep Reading One of My Books And Woke Up A Christian’ , and maybe even buy three copies – they make a real nice pillow! Getting back to our game, next category please, Roody Code D Jooty?”

    Rooty Codeine Julie: “Yes Karl, because I’m a serious candidate, I’ll take EXPLODING BIBLES for $300”

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Okay, this Presidential candidate ran against Obama in 2012 on a ticket that included Ted Kaczynski,the Unabomber as VP!”

    Coldeze Rhomburt Julie: “I know this one ! Who is Sodee Robber JuhNootie?” BUZZ!(pause) PING!

    Tim Adumbs:” EVERYBODY in Hawaii knew this one!Who is Rudy Justice Judy?” BUZZ!(pause) PING!

    Donalt Rump:“Who is Wild Bill Cody?”BUZZ!(pause, then a donkey brays)

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Sorry Panel, all wrong!The correct answer was, ‘Who is Cozy Pobert Goofy’ . Okay,choosing our next category, the Reverend Moaning from Attilla the Hon Ministries, your category please!”

    Reverend Moaning: “Sure Karl, and, respecting the office, but not the murdering mooselum usurper Who Sane occupying it, I’ll go with BEST NON-EVIDENCE for $400?”

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Okay, for $400, the Framers would have considered an affirmative answer to what question, as proof that the answering candidate was ineligible to the Presidency?”

    Reverend Moaning: “What is, ‘Are you a whoring long-legged MackDaddy?’” BUZZ!(pause) PING!

    Joseph Fair Uh:”What is, Did you stop beating your Usurper’s wife?” BUZZ!(pause) PING!

    Alan Kees:”What is, ‘Are you the virtual spawn of Saul Alinsky and Satan?’” BUZZ!

    Karl Gall Oops!: “Sorry, Panel!We were looking for, ‘Do you support Freedom of Religion for anyone except Christians?’”

    Donalt Rump:“I’m a pretty smart guy, you know!I could win today if I ran with Oprah. Or…or even Abraham Lincoln.Is he dead?Does anybody know?”(a donkey brays)

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Okay, choose our next category, Mike Zoo Low – lead instigator forthe Mia Copa Cold Case Pussie, Mike?”

    Mike Zoo Low:”Sure, Karl, I’m gonna have to choose ‘Survival Strategies for the Prison-bound’ for five bucks? “

    Karl Gall Oops! (giggling):”Uh, no, Mike –you must have heard my new ad on my answering Machine when you called in – that’s a member recruiting pamphlet idea that I picked up last week guesting on the Gym Bake Her Show!Just go ahead and pick a regular category. Take your time. We can wait.JUST maybe not another THREE YEARS!” (Rim shot is heard and charwoman snickers on audio)

    Mike Zoo Low:”Oh……..kayyyyyyyy, Monty, I’ll take NOT A SCINTELLA OF REAL EVIDENCE for $150,000!”

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Okay, but I’m not Monty, and the question is only worth $1000, so for that $1000, Mike Zoo Low, what is the question whose correct answer is, ‘THIS is the Birther expression used to describe a complete absence of evidence against Obama!”

    Mike Zoo Low:”What is ‘Universe-shattering proof ?”(cash register sound and audience applauds wildly)

    Bat Poone (yelling in the studio):”……and let’s remember that means proof of HIGH CRIMES and NOT a misdemeanor!”

    Karl Gall Oops!:”That’s the right answer!Great work, Mike!And great judicial work there, washed-up singer, Bat Poone! Now we continue with our next…”

    A.R Gnash (interrupting): “What is ‘Natural Law’?“BUZZ!

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Wait a minute, here, A.R., you were not invited onto the show, you didn’t pick a category and I didn’t even ask a new question yet……”

    A.R Gnash: “No problem, ‘Natural law’ is my answer to every question. I can see giant redwoods from my back porch. “

    Karl Gall Oops!:”Go climb one, Adrian! Climb a big one, okay?NOW, the only category left is, ‘He’s a Damn Usurper Is What’s Wrong!’for $10 TO $100, -Disgraced one-time Lt.Col.Terrial Achin’, what dollar amount do you want to play for?”

    Disgraced former Lt.Col. Achin’: “First, I’d like to examine each of the bills and coins that I may be given as prizes, to make sure that they meet the personal minimal standards I myself have adopted for Constitutional United States legal tender.”

    Karl Gall Oops! (after an exasperated pause):”I can’t run a game show if every contestant can demand that I personally let them examine every piece of currency I hand them, and only agree it has value if it meets some personal standard of value that they privately cling to!Are you still nuts?”

    Disgraced former Lt.Col. Achin’: “Just show me every bill and coin in the country then, and if they satisfy me, I’ll honor my contract with your show. I’m trying to be reasonable. ”

    Karl Gall Oops! (quietly into his headset microphone) “We need to getLt.Col. Achin’ into Nancy Owems cage and turn out the lights. And gag him first so he doesn’t put her to sleep.”

    Karl Gall Oops!:” Okay, Listeners, Birther Jeopardy continues with Fobbert Colon Jooby – he’s chosen the category ‘Exploding Bibles’ again but for $800 this time!What question goes with the following answer, Fobbert?‘Explosive experts and Biblical scholars agree on this Earthly manifestation of the biblical doctrinal expression, “God in three persons”.’

    Bobber Codeine Jooty:”That’s easy! Who is Bobber Codeine Jooty?” (Bing!)

  124. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 18, 2015 at 1:39 pm #

    Hey Doc. Our friend Russ’ profile at IVN seems to have disappeared. Looks like it got deleted along with his comments. Oh well. I guess his proof is in the same place as the reed hayes report.

  125. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2015 at 1:44 pm #

    Jurisdiction.

    Nancy R Owens:
    Isn’t that Mike ZulloMoore and Arapio’s job upon my reporting this having taken inthousands upon thousands of dollars? Not to mention an untold amount of tax dollars that we all pay to fund these so-called “investigators?”

    Am I missing something here?

  126. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 18, 2015 at 1:50 pm #

    I think maybe I scared him off. Sorry about that.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    Hey Doc.Our friend Russ’ profile at IVN seems to have disappeared.Looks like it got deleted along with his comments.Oh well.I guess his proof is in the same place as the reed hayes report.

  127. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 18, 2015 at 2:51 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: Am I missing something here?

    Your marbles?

  128. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 18, 2015 at 3:37 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: Am I missing something here?

    Substantial evidence to back up your claims, and a leg to stand on.

  129. avatar
    Dave B. June 18, 2015 at 4:42 pm #

    And in today’s big “BREAKING” story over at the American News they’re recycling this oldie:
    “Now, Judge Ellen Lipton Hollender (sic) has decided to give Taitz another chance, giving her a 21 day extension to file a second amended complaint where she can add allegations regarding the SSA’s failure to conduct proper research.”

  130. avatar
    Northland10 June 18, 2015 at 6:53 pm #

    CRJ: Now, you didn’t REALLY think did you if SCOTUS wanted a Response they’d print it on the same Docket listed for the public did you? Are you Out of your minds? Would you?

    But it did confirm for me your sincerely out of the loop. Big BBQ COMING UP! Gotta run its been fun!

    You mean, there won’t be something like this?

    Oct 7 2014 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 10, 2014)
    Oct 16 2014 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
    Oct 20 2014 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the petitioner.
    Oct 22 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 7, 2014.
    Oct 28 2014 Response Requested . (Due November 28, 2014)

    It is from Sila Luis v United States. SCOTUS recently granted the petition.

  131. avatar
    Dave B. June 18, 2015 at 11:30 pm #

    Looks like he’s gone zombie on us and come back from the deleted.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think maybe I scared him off. Sorry about that.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    Hey Doc.Our friend Russ’ profile at IVN seems to have disappeared.Looks like it got deleted along with his comments.Oh well.I guess his proof is in the same place as the reed hayes report.

  132. avatar
    CRJ June 19, 2015 at 9:17 am #

    @Noisy Waters- lazy river whatever.. “Why would your mind go there Re:” Cat poop ” I was watching “Taledega Nights – w Rickey Bobby . ” Something you wouldn’t have to ask if you were a true Racing Fan. Shake & Bake.. That just Happened!”

    @Reality Loop or Ferris Wheel whatever.. It goes round and round.. “Do you really think there is a Secret Docket? ”
    Why do you think I provided to you tracking numbers and a Default Notice? So, you’ll see how much time elapsed between arrival, discussion on rocketing..the docket In the secret doc box.. And the Public Docket.

    Can I cite a single case where actions in the Court are not available to the Public Eye but are known to be received by the Court and placed on the Rickey Docket but not the Public Docket?

    Three I know of: Berg v. Obama 2008: Judy v. Obama 12-5276: &; Judy v. Obama 14-9396 check the Scribd Record in contrast with the Public Docket. The common denominator? Obama aka Barry Soetoro

    You know that does not happen in the Lower District or Circuit Courts. Why does it happen in SCOTUS?

    Read the Default here.. We’ll know in 7 to 30 days.. They don’t release their findings at the hearing. https://www.scribd.com/doc/268539121/Judy-v-Obama-Judgement-for-A-Default-U-S-Supreme-Court

    I think I had two Motions undocketed in Judy v. Obama 12-5276 and yes they do docket Motions. So.. Is that a clerk deciding to be the Justices?

    That just should not be.

  133. avatar
    CRJ June 19, 2015 at 9:31 am #

    @ Nancy R Owens or Hollywood birthed script writer.. How does your mind even function here and not get questioned by the Verrial Cat Verbi?

    You may have a Pulitzer Prize there! Please submit immediately to Washington Post and New York Times I’m sure you’ll get published there! They love Game Show Reality/Fiction Entertainment.

  134. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 19, 2015 at 9:37 am #

    CRJ: @Noisy Waters- lazy river whatever.. “Why would your mind go there Re:” Cat poop ” I was watching “Taledega Nights – w Rickey Bobby . ” Something you wouldn’t have to ask if you were a true Racing Fan. Shake & Bake.. That just Happened!”

    Oh hey pretend general Cody I notice you haven’t made the bet regarding your case getting booted. Are you a coward as usual?

  135. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 19, 2015 at 9:57 am #

    He accepted my bet.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Oh hey pretend general Cody I notice you haven’t made the bet regarding your case getting booted.Are you a coward as usual?

  136. avatar
    Reality Check June 19, 2015 at 10:42 am #

    But not mine …

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    He accepted my bet.

  137. avatar
    bob June 19, 2015 at 12:39 pm #

    CRJ:
    Can I cite a single case where actions in the Court are not available to the Public Eye but are known to be received by the Court and placed on the Rickey Docket but not the Public Docket?

    Three I know of: Berg v. Obama 2008: Judy v. Obama 12-5276: &; Judy v. Obama 14-9396 check the Scribd Record in contrast with the Public Docket. The common denominator? Obama aka Barry Soetoro

    Be specific: What actions were performed in those three cases that do not appear on the public docket.

    (And “Rickey Docket”?)

    I hope you are prepared to learn on Monday that your cert. petition has been denied. Perhaps you can waste your weekend by writing the first 5000 words OF RAGE that you’ll eventually publish on your blog.

  138. avatar
    Rickey June 19, 2015 at 12:39 pm #

    CRJ:

    Can I cite a single case where actions in the Court are not available to the Public Eye but are known to be received by the Court and placed on the Rickey Docket but not the Public Docket?

    You weren’t asked about “actions” which were not docketed.

    You were asked specifically if you could cite a case in which SCOTUS asked for a response from a respondent and the request did not appear on the docket.You have failed to do so.

    SCOTUS does not bother to fill up the docket with filings which do not satisfy the rules or which are of no relevance. That is why your inane motion for Summary Judgment does not appear on the docket.

  139. avatar
    Joey June 19, 2015 at 1:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Trump / Koch connection

    https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/06/the-dark-money-man-behind-the-donald/

    CAUTION: birther heads may explode!
    Trump/Soros Connection:
    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-28/news/0410280265_1_donald-trump-soros-fund-management-blackacre-institutional-capital-management

    23 Prominent Democrats Who Rolled In Donald Trump’s Dough: Clinton, Rangel, Schumer, Kerry, Reid….etc.
    http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/17/23-prominent-democrats-who-rolled-in-donald-trumps-dough/

  140. avatar
    Jim June 19, 2015 at 1:23 pm #

    CRJ:

    Three I know of: Berg v. Obama 2008: Judy v. Obama 12-5276: &; Judy v. Obama 14-9396 check the Scribd Record in contrast with the Public Docket. The common denominator? Obama aka Barry Soetoro

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Missed again CRJ, the common denominator were incompetent birther lawyers filing incompetent legal theories that are no where in the Constitution or law. The court, in its infinite wisdom, deemed them nutjobs.

    Amazing how all those other cases against Obama do show up though, isn’t it? Tells you that the SCOTUS has no problem posting actual, REAL cases of law doesn’t it?

  141. avatar
    Reality Check June 19, 2015 at 1:37 pm #

    CRJ still has until Monday to take my wager that his case will be denied cert.

    He also never answered why he shafted us taxpayers for his nonsense case instead of ponying up the filing fee himself.

  142. avatar
    Rickey June 19, 2015 at 3:55 pm #

    Jim:
    CRJ:

    Three I know of: Berg v. Obama 2008: Judy v. Obama 12-5276: &; Judy v. Obama 14-9396 check the Scribd Record in contrast with the Public Docket. The common denominator? Obama aka Barry Soetoro

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Missed again CRJ, the common denominator were incompetent birther lawyers filing incompetent legal theories that are no where in the Constitution or law.The court, in its infinite wisdom, deemed them nutjobs.

    Amazing how all those other cases against Obama do show up though, isn’t it?Tells you that the SCOTUS has no problem posting actual, REAL cases of law doesn’t it?

    And of course his own previous case, 12-5276, followed the same pattern as his current case:

    Jul 25 2012 Waiver of right of respondent Barack H. Obama, President of the United States to respond filed.
    Aug 30 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.

    No response was requested, so a five-year old child could have predicted what was going to happen next:

    Oct 1 2012 Petition DENIED.

    In that case Judy filed a Petition for Rehearing, which of course was denied as well. He probably will do the same thing in his current case. Why not? The taxpayers are paying for it.

  143. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 19, 2015 at 4:01 pm #

    I got my .03 cents worth.

    Reality Check:

    He also never answered why he shafted us taxpayers for his nonsense case instead of ponying up the filing fee himself.

  144. avatar
    Reality Check June 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm #

    Wise choice of wager to make. CRJ knows his case is dead. That’s why he wouldn’t put $10 on it much less $1000. (By the way CRJ, just name any amount less than $1000 and we’re on 😉 ).

    I remember when I made a similar offer for a wager to Mark Gillar about Obots going to prison he slithered away. None of them really believe their line of BS. I just enjoy putting them on the spot to back it up. They always fold.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I got my .03 cents worth.

  145. avatar
    CRJ June 20, 2015 at 12:10 am #

    @Reality Regarding Q Wager I’m terrible at cards, gambling, and “owing my soul to the Company Store”. No disrepect in abstaining, I simply do not have $10 I have about $23 to my name right now, but I got 6 BBQ’n legs of chicken I placed on the BBQ. I’d be willing to bet 2 legs?

    Hey, I know you guys kid about finances and all, but seriously.. If I had the money for my Court filing fees I would pay them. I actually did lay out the $400 for Judy v. McCain in 2008.

    I’m sure you know if you pay your filing fees in SCOTUS your Printing fees go up to between 3 and $5,000 due to it having to be printed in a booklet format and 41 copies given to the Court.

    Without paying Filing Fees your still copying 15 copies of a 43 page document and priority mailing. I know I’ve got $200 on it pretty easy just on bare expenses. Now when you start the days of missing work , has running around, it’s still quite a bit more than being a key board warrior.

    The Court certainly is responsible for granting or denying Informs Pauperis status with a lengthy 5 page form describing net worth , income, and liabilities. That 5 pages is itself 75 pages of the printed material and mailing costs.

    This has been really hard for me. I’ve really loved below the poverty line for food stamps and housing, but have refused it and just gone without.

    Not that this would stop your teasing me about being poor now you know. But it is not in my character to intentionally take advantage of the Federal Government in that derogatory manner.

    The very few contributions made were used exactly for covering things otherwise that would have made the endeavor impossible for me and came as the dew of heaven I was extremely grateful for.

    This has been a huge sacrifice for me and my family in so many ways, if I’m denied and put out on the dead list, you know I could probably get back to making some money and enjoying life like you all.

    If I lose I’m happy to crawl back up from under the bus and take a seat in the back of the bus 🚌 to be honest. I actually see success in this case being a much worse proposal in many respects that I won’t elaborate on. . but “Justice” doesn’t happen to be one of them.

    I would ask for forgiveness here on this site to anyone I have offended in any manner. Your American brothers and sisters of mine simply deposed with a variation of my own belief that You of course know on the Record of SCOTUS.

    I NOTICE my 10th Cir. Failure has already been cited by other Cases as evidence substanuating “frivolousness” to my shagrin. Perhaps that information will ease some worth to you of my worthlessness.

    Doc is right, I accepted his friendly wager because my Pride is something I am always willing to humble in the Order of the Day.

    Best Regards to you all

  146. avatar
    dr. kenneth noisewater June 20, 2015 at 12:38 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    He accepted my bet.

    Your bet doesn’t cost him anything

  147. avatar
    Rickey June 20, 2015 at 1:04 am #

    CRJ:

    This has been a huge sacrifice for me and my family in so many ways, if I’m denied and put out on the dead list, you know I could probably get back to making some money and enjoying life like you all.

    Spending the last seven years tilting at windmills will do that.

    The Supreme Court will put you out of your misery on Monday. Maybe then you can find something useful to do with the rest of your life.

  148. avatar
    Punchmaster via Mobile June 20, 2015 at 3:14 am #

    Take your sob story to BR, Judy.

  149. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 20, 2015 at 7:54 am #

    Well I don’t see that you personally harmed me except for court costs divided by 300000000 which haven’t reached a penny in total. I forgive that.

    You represent that you’re going to get on with your life if you lose. Hooray if you do, but given the lack of discernment that got you where you are (and I promise you that you’re totally wrong in what you believe on Obama eligibility and the possibility of achieving anything) I am not optimistic. Once someone has invested as much of their life in something as you have, it’s hard to let go and stop throwing good money after bad.

    See my article http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/10/the-birther-contribution-to-american-jurisprudence/ on your other point.

    CRJ: I would ask for forgiveness here on this site to anyone I have offended in any manner. Your American brothers and sisters of mine simply deposed with a variation of my own belief that You of course know on the Record of SCOTUS.

    I NOTICE my 10th Cir. Failure has already been cited by other Cases as evidence substanuating “frivolousness” to my shagrin. Perhaps that information will ease some worth to you of my worthlessness.

  150. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 20, 2015 at 10:02 am #

    CRJ

    I NOTICE my 10th Cir. Failure has already been cited by other Cases as evidence substanuating “frivolousness” to my shagrin.”

    It’s not frivolous because Obama is eligible. It’s frivolous because the court has a vested interest in the outcome of the case and cannot hear it.

    Whenever the people use the ballot box to install an ineligible President, it voids the Constitution. A voided Constitution terminates the Supreme Court pursuant to Article III. The court would commit suicide if it allowed evidence that Obama was ineligible to be entered into the record.

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78:

    Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body.

    Rather than going to court, you should spend your time organizing the people to replaced the abolished Constitution.

  151. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund June 20, 2015 at 12:06 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    CRJ

    It’s not frivolous because Obama is eligible. It’s frivolous because the court has a vested interest in the outcome of the case and cannot hear it.

    Whenever the people use the ballot box to install an ineligible President, it voids the Constitution. A voided Constitution terminates the Supreme Courtpursuant to Article III. The court would commit suicide if it allowed evidence that Obama was ineligible to be entered into the record.

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78:

    Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body.

    Rather than going to court, you should spend your time organizing the people to replaced the abolished Constitution.

    Ah, I had forgotten Sven’s other obsession. No, electing an ineligible president would not, in fact, void the Constitution, any more than an unconstitutional law does. Indeed, the next sentence of the paragraph that Sven quoted is quite explicit about that:

    Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.

    The Constitution itself prescribes the means by which it can be changed or have provisions annulled. Absent such a “solemn and authoritative act,” no act in violation is justifiable. Up to and including electing a president who turns out to be ineligible. As Hamilton said, the proper solution is to have the courts declare the act void:

    The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.

    Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void. As this doctrine is of great importance in all the American constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground on which it rests cannot be unacceptable.

    There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

    And while Hamilton focuses on the legislature, as that is the body most likely to commit acts in violation of the constitution, he acknowledges that the same principles apply to other bodies:

    That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws.

  152. avatar
    Reality Check June 20, 2015 at 12:49 pm #

    Too bad you have a history of making poor choices in life. It’s still not to late to stop doing that.

    Unlike you I recognized that an Obama Presidency would be very good for America. I put my money on that by staying in the market with my savings in 2008 after taking a beating. I bet again in 2010 when I retired and took a chance by getting my pension as a lump sum and investing that heavily into stocks again. Let’s just say while paying you a thousand would hurt my pride it would not hurt my lifestyle

    It’s not about the money though. It is about supporting a great moderate President who has actually made our lives better and enhanced our tarnished image in the world.

    I feel sorry for deluded fools like you and Volin who spend hours and money on nonsense and imagine you are great patriots when actually you are not patriots at all. It is hard for a rational person to have pity instead of contempt for you. I do pity your family members who may not have had a choice. That’s often the case with Birthers.

    CRJ: This has been a huge sacrifice for me and my family in so many ways, if I’m denied and put out on the dead list, you know I could probably get back to making some money and enjoying life like you all.

  153. avatar
    CRJ June 20, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

    Of Course you realize the 8 attempts after 2003 by Congress to “change” the interpretation of “natural born Citizen” to be the Legislative Action forming the conundrum of your arguments?

    As well representative of the People’s will in totality by the lack of success of those prying against the boulder of the 2/3rds majority needed to call your thoughts successful.

    Flying downstream is the Majority to your minority to turn the grounded reality out and into a Constitutional Amendment and for these facts plainly represented in Reality you call me “delusional”?

    Also, for the Facts that many times Legislative Acts have been speared through as “unconstitutional” by the co-equal Judicial Branch alone, against both the Legislative and Executive Branch for which your contempt rest calling it “illegal” and stating the Court Resigns itself by calling into question the ineligibility of any Candidate so approved by Congress or the Legislative Branch?

    Such disdain for the equal checks and balances between the three Branches I think is unsound and many a good men with me.

    You defend the Courts Docket as “public’ while witnessing Court Documents missing in action , whilst you state they don’t bother gumming up the Docket with my dribble?

    Who are you? Reality? Really? As to the points I address it seems your attention narrowly focused on a very small window of history whilst mine is a rather large bey window.

    This explains the distortion of View simply to understand. The curtain rising and being drawn back is all that is needed for you to enjoy what I have seen.

  154. avatar
    Dave B. June 20, 2015 at 1:48 pm #

    Oh for Pete’s sake. Try this– have someone else read these rants of yours to you, out loud, and see if they make any sense when you hear them. If they still make sense to you then, well, you’re irredeemably nuts.

    CRJ:
    Of Course you realize the 8 attempts after 2003 by Congress to “change” the interpretation of “natural born Citizen” to be the Legislative Action forming the conundrum of your arguments?

    As well representative of the People’s will in totality by the lack of success of those prying against the boulder of the 2/3rds majority needed to call your thoughts successful.

    Flying downstream is the Majority to your minority to turn the grounded reality out and into a Constitutional Amendment and for these facts plainly represented in Reality you call me “delusional”?

    Also, for the Facts that many times Legislative Acts have been speared through as “unconstitutional” by the co-equal Judicial Branch alone, against both the Legislative and Executive Branch for which your contempt rest calling it “illegal” and stating the Court Resigns itself by calling into question the ineligibility of any Candidate so approved by Congress or the Legislative Branch?

    Such disdain for the equal checks and balances between the three Branches I think is unsound and many a good men with me.

    You defend the Courts Docket as “public’ while witnessing Court Documents missing in action , whilst you state they don’t bother gumming up the Docket with my dribble?

    Who are you? Reality? Really? As to the points I address it seems your attention narrowly focused on a very small window of history whilst mine is a rather large bey window.

    This explains the distortion of View simply to understand. The curtain rising and being drawn back is all that is needed for you to enjoy what I have seen.

  155. avatar
    DaveH June 20, 2015 at 1:50 pm #

    Yes. You are delusional.

    CRJ:
    Of Course you realize the 8 attempts after 2003 by Congress to “change” the interpretation of “natural born Citizen” to be the Legislative Action forming the conundrum of your arguments?

    As well representative of the People’s will in totality by the lack of success of those prying against the boulder of the 2/3rds majority needed to call your thoughts successful.

    Flying downstream is the Majority to your minority to turn the grounded reality out and into a Constitutional Amendment and for these facts plainly represented in Reality you call me “delusional”?

    Also, for the Facts that many times Legislative Acts have been speared through as “unconstitutional” by the co-equal Judicial Branch alone, against both the Legislative and Executive Branch for which your contempt rest calling it “illegal” and stating the Court Resigns itself by calling into question the ineligibility of any Candidate so approved by Congress or the Legislative Branch?

    Such disdain for the equal checks and balances between the three Branches I think is unsound and many a good men with me.

    You defend the Courts Docket as “public’ while witnessing Court Documents missing in action , whilst you state they don’t bother gumming up the Docket with my dribble?

    Who are you? Reality? Really? As to the points I address it seems your attention narrowly focused on a very small window of history whilst mine is a rather large bey window.

    This explains the distortion of View simply to understand. The curtain rising and being drawn back is all that is needed for you to enjoy what I have seen.

  156. avatar
    Reality Check June 20, 2015 at 1:59 pm #

    Filings that are clearly not within the rules are filtered by the clerks and not docketed. They are just doing your job, You are rank amateur pushing a pile of stinking nonsense in a playing field designed for professionals.

    CRJ: ou defend the Courts Docket as “public’ while witnessing Court Documents missing in action , whilst you state they don’t bother gumming up the Docket with my dribble?

  157. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 20, 2015 at 2:33 pm #

    All CRJ is doing, is making sure some poor clerk has a really bad day.

  158. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 20, 2015 at 2:34 pm #

    CRJ: This explains the distortion of View simply to understand. The curtain rising and being drawn back is all that is needed for you to enjoy what I have seen.

    You’re a drama queen to boot.

  159. avatar
    Rickey June 20, 2015 at 2:42 pm #

    CRJ:

    You defend the Courts Docket as “public’ while witnessing Court Documents missing in action , whilst you state they don’t bother gumming up the Docket with my dribble?

    They docket the filings which are in compliance with the Supreme Court’s rules. Your motion for a default judgment has not been docketed because the Supreme Court does not enter default judgments. The Supreme Court either affirms or overturns lower court judgments.

    Furthermore, there is no requirement for a respondent to file a waiver of its right to respond.

    Have you even bothered to read the rules of the Supreme Court? Rule 33 sets forth the types of motions which are permissible. A motion for a default judgment is not among them.

    Here is what the rules say about waiving the right to respond (Rule 15.5):

    The Clerk will distribute the petition to the Court for its consideration upon receiving an express waiver of the right to file a brief in opposition, or, if no waiver or brief in opposition is filed, upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing.

    Do you understand what that says? The respondent is under no obligation to file a response, and is under no obligation to file a waiver of the right to respond. A respondent can do nothing and still be in compliance with the rules. There is no such thing as a default in a Supreme Court case.

  160. avatar
    Northland10 June 20, 2015 at 3:08 pm #

    Rickey: They docket the filings which are in compliance with the Supreme Court’s rules. Your motion for a default judgment has not been docketed because the Supreme Court does not enter default judgments. The Supreme Court either affirms or overturns lower court judgments.

    Furthermore, there is no requirement for a respondent to file a waiver of its right to respond.

    I find the whole attempt at default more amusing since he failed to properly serve the defendants in the original case. As it is, he was not entitled to a default in the trial court because, as stated by the appeals court:

    Even if the Defendants were properly served, Judy would not have been entitled to default judgment because the district court was required to dismiss his complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(i)–(ii) as frivolous and for failing to state a claim for relief.

    The defense has no need to add anything for SCOTUS because the case is still frivolous and fails to state a claim for relief.

  161. avatar
    bgansel9 June 20, 2015 at 3:19 pm #

    Just thought you’d find our crazy sheriff’s latest stunt interesting:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/245636-arizonas-sheriff-joe-arpaio-to-send-armed-volunteers-to-protect

    Considering the words of Jesus in the Bible, if I were one of these black churchgoers, I’d be appalled by this action.

    Moreover, the attack was not against religious freedom as the crazy rightwingers are suggesting, it was racially motivated: http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/06/20/reports-dylann-roof-s-manifesto-found.html

  162. avatar
    bgansel9 June 20, 2015 at 3:26 pm #

    CRJ: This has been a huge sacrifice for me and my family in so many ways

    By CHOICE. Where’s your damned bootstraps? It’s not up to someone else to solve your problems, right? Get over yourself.

  163. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 20, 2015 at 4:31 pm #

    MacGuyver

    There is nothing in Federalist No. 78 that says the people must seek the approval of the federal government to alter or abolish the Constitution. The Constitution limits the federal government. The rights of the people are God given and unlimited. See the Ninth Amendment.

    An ineligible President assuming the office fulfills the will of the majority through an authoritative and solemn act at the ballot box. Only a Vice President who is ineligible to assume the Office of the President can be prevented from assuming the Vice Presidency. An ineligible President terminates the sovereignty delegated to the federal government by the people. The sovereignty of the majority cannot be restrained or limited by the federal government because sovereignty is a gift from God to people.

    Proponents of Article V do not understand the will of majority cannot be restrained by the Constitution. Article V is only used to restrain the federal government and the states. Pursuant to Article VI, all federal and state legislators, all federal and state judges, and all federal and state executive officers of the government must swear an oath to support the Constitution. US citizens are not required to swear an oath to support the Constitution to maintain their citizenship because they have the God-given right to abolish or alter the Constitution if their unhappiness overwhelms them.

  164. avatar
    Rickey June 20, 2015 at 5:08 pm #

    Northland10: I find the whole attempt at default more amusing since he failed to properly serve the defendants in the original case.As it is, he was not entitled to a default in the trial court because, as stated by the appeals court:

    The defense has no need to add anything for SCOTUS because the case is still frivolous and fails to state a claim for relief.

    And Judy fails to understand that even if SCOTUS granted him cert, and even if after briefs and oral arguments eventually ruled in his favor, all that would happen is that the case would be sent back to the lower court.

    The lack of understanding about how the Supreme Court works has been a constant among birthers since the fall of 2008, when they convinced themselves that SCOTUS was going to order Obama to produce his long-form birth certificate.

  165. avatar
    Rickey June 20, 2015 at 5:11 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Blah, Blah, Blah. Nonsense and more nonsense.

  166. avatar
    faceman June 20, 2015 at 7:21 pm #

    CRJ: Flying downstream is the Majority to your minority to turn the grounded reality out and into a Constitutional Amendment and for these facts plainly represented in Reality you call me “delusional”?

    No, I call you incoherent. To quote the bard, ‘Sound and fury, signifying nothing.’

  167. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 20, 2015 at 7:25 pm #

    CRJ: you call me “delusional”?

    Yep and a domestic terrorist as well.

  168. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 20, 2015 at 7:35 pm #

    Judy, I swear, trying to read you disorganized whining drivel makes my head hurt. I thought Svenski was bad with his legal flights of fancy, but you have far surpassed him in both departments. It is no wonder, or surprise, that you do so poorly in court as poorly as you marshal your thoughts and points, they are all over the place and all gibberish.

    Yes, it is true that there have been, at least, 8 attempts by the simple minded fringe elements in Congress to change, as you put it, the “interpretation” of “natural born Citizen”. The fact that they couldn’t even muster a significant number of votes to pass a law, let alone a Constitutional Amendment should, at least to a person of normal intelligence, suggest that there is no great up swelling of popular support, let alone interest in such an action. Contrary to your strongly held delusion, I do not believe it is a burning issue with even a minorly significant portion of the electorate, let alone a sufficient number to affect a Constitutional Amendment. It simply isn’t an issue in most people’s minds. What also isn’t an issue, and that you and your fellow traveling clowns don’t seem to get, is the President’s status, something else you have consistently and continually failed to grasp and come to terms with. The (current)President is, and always has been, not only a citizen, but a natural born citizen, and there have been courts that have ruled as such, so you have no claim there either. He has been twice elected, by a considerable majority, twice elected by the Electors, and twice confirmed by the House and Senate, all as prescribed by the Constitution, so he is legally, and constitutionally, the President.

    You who claim to want to be President still do not seem to grasp that one of the functions of the court(s) is to determine the constitutionality of an act by Congress. Congress has a lot of authority and a lot of leeway, but they do have to abide by the Constitution and the court(s) is the final arbiter of that. That is what is called checks and balances.

    If you insist on filing crap that doesn’t comply with the court rules they aren’t going to accept it for filing, it is that simple, which I am sure is what confuses you. They don’t accept defaults, there is no such thing at that level, and they won’t accept your laundry list either, so get over it, quit whining and learn how things are done. I’ve seldom seen anyone glory in their utter ignorance the way you do, like it is a good thing.

    Do you even understand what it is that the Supreme Court is doing in this instance?? Apparently not from your carryings on. They are reviewing your filing to see if there was anything that the lower courts did or that the Appeals Court did that would be grounds for reversal, and they won’t find anything, your suit was a crock from the start and has been properly shit canned every step along the way. The Appeals Court accepted what the lower court(s) had done, and the Supreme Court will agree with the Appeals Court and let their verdict stand. In other words, you are (rightly and justly)DOA. They aren’t retrying your pile o’crap, they are verifying what the other courts have done and said, and they will let it stand as it is, without comment, as is the usual response. YOU LOST!!!!

    The plain fact of the matter is that you lost because you have NO standing, and NO cause of action, and NOTHING to base your complaint on, and the court will eventually put your laugh attack out of everyone’s misery. You are a joke, and not even a very funny one, just more along the lines of tired and pathetic.

    Svenski, shut up. We’ve been over this same tired ground before and you lost and are dead wrong.

  169. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 20, 2015 at 7:54 pm #

    CRJ: you call me “delusional”?

    Without question. I’m not so sure that you think any of this, or any of us, are real.

  170. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 20, 2015 at 8:01 pm #

    Declaration of Independence

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    Rickey and King George III

    Blah, Blah, Blah. Nonsense and more nonsense.

  171. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 20, 2015 at 8:20 pm #

    And Svenski, when enough people get together and decide that they want to hold a constitutional convention then they can change, abolish, or otherwise fiddle with the constitution, but until such comes to pass the Constitution stands as the Law of the Land and can not be willy nilly disregarded just because Svenski has her kjnickers in a twist.

  172. avatar
    Keith June 20, 2015 at 10:08 pm #

    CRJ:
    Of Course you realize the 8 attempts after 2003 by Congress to “change” the interpretation of “natural born Citizen” to be the Legislative Action forming the conundrum of your arguments?

    As well representative of the People’s will in totality by the lack of success of those prying against the boulder of the 2/3rds majority needed to call your thoughts successful.

    Flying downstream is the Majority to your minority to turn the grounded reality out and into a Constitutional Amendment and for these facts plainly represented in Reality you call me “delusional”?

    Also, for the Facts that many times Legislative Acts have been speared through as “unconstitutional” by the co-equal Judicial Branch alone, against both the Legislative and Executive Branch for which your contempt rest calling it “illegal” and stating the Court Resigns itself by calling into question the ineligibility of any Candidate so approved by Congress or the Legislative Branch?

    Such disdain for the equal checks and balances between the three Branches I think is unsound and many a good men with me.

    You defend the Courts Docket as “public’ while witnessing Court Documents missing in action , whilst you state they don’t bother gumming up the Docket with my dribble?

    Who are you? Reality? Really? As to the points I address it seems your attention narrowly focused on a very small window of history whilst mine is a rather large bey window.

    This explains the distortion of View simply to understand. The curtain rising and being drawn back is all that is needed for you to enjoy what I have seen.

    Could I have some tomato in that word salad please?

  173. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 21, 2015 at 1:33 am #

    A reply: http://www.kpho.com/story/29369424/critics-say-no-thank-you-to-sheriffs-church-patrols

    bgansel9:
    Just thought you’d find our crazy sheriff’s latest stunt interesting:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/245636-arizonas-sheriff-joe-arpaio-to-send-armed-volunteers-to-protect

    Considering the words of Jesus in the Bible, if I were one of these black churchgoers, I’d be appalled by this action.

    Moreover, the attack was not against religious freedom as the crazy rightwingers are suggesting, it was racially motivated:http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/06/20/reports-dylann-roof-s-manifesto-found.html

  174. avatar
    Lupin June 21, 2015 at 3:54 am #

    CRJ:
    Of Course you realize the 8 attempts after 2003 by Congress to “change” the interpretation of “natural born Citizen” to be the Legislative Action forming the conundrum of your arguments?

    As well representative of the People’s will in totality by the lack of success of those prying against the boulder of the 2/3rds majority needed to call your thoughts successful.

    Flying downstream is the Majority to your minority to turn the grounded reality out and into a Constitutional Amendment and for these facts plainly represented in Reality you call me “delusional”?

    Also, for the Facts that many times Legislative Acts have been speared through as “unconstitutional” by the co-equal Judicial Branch alone, against both the Legislative and Executive Branch for which your contempt rest calling it “illegal” and stating the Court Resigns itself by calling into question the ineligibility of any Candidate so approved by Congress or the Legislative Branch?

    Such disdain for the equal checks and balances between the three Branches I think is unsound and many a good men with me.

    You defend the Courts Docket as “public’ while witnessing Court Documents missing in action , whilst you state they don’t bother gumming up the Docket with my dribble?

    Who are you? Reality? Really? As to the points I address it seems your attention narrowly focused on a very small window of history whilst mine is a rather large bey window.

    This explains the distortion of View simply to understand. The curtain rising and being drawn back is all that is needed for you to enjoy what I have seen.

    If I didn’t know better I’d swear English is your third language.

    Seriously, you come across as barely literate. Did you finish high school? Or do you have an impairment like dyslexia?

  175. avatar
    Lupin June 21, 2015 at 3:56 am #

    Wonders will never cease.

    I wonder if my quixotic efforts are finally having a result; in his latest rant on the Original Gerbil report., Cmdr Kerchner is now no longer repeating the “two citizen parents” nonsense in connection with Vattel, but appears to now focus on to the correct “the father alone transmits citizenship”.

  176. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 21, 2015 at 4:20 am #

    The only reason that they even attached onto the 2-parent theory of citizenship was that they didn’t want to seem sexist. If they suggested that only the father passes on citizenship, that basically means that women would then have no place, and that a woman was not on equal footing with a man. Furthermore, they’d have to acknowledge a reasonable assumption that in this day when gender equality actually exists, then their argument that a woman cannot pass on citizenship is idiotic.

  177. avatar
    Dave B. June 21, 2015 at 5:21 am #

    Some of them still do it.

    dunstvangeet: If they suggested that only the father passes on citizenship, that basically means that women would then have no place, and that a woman was not on equal footing with a man.

  178. avatar
    Lupin June 21, 2015 at 11:36 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    The only reason that they even attached onto the 2-parent theory of citizenship was that they didn’t want to seem sexist.If they suggested that only the father passes on citizenship, that basically means that women would then have no place, and that a woman was not on equal footing with a man.Furthermore, they’d have to acknowledge a reasonable assumption that in this day when gender equality actually exists, then their argument that a woman cannot pass on citizenship is idiotic.

    Actually now that they’re coming to realize Vattel did not say what they thought he said (ie “twofer”), they’re increasingly turning to the ‘father only” notion; notorious birthers like JB Williams and Sharon Rondeau have done it & it would seem Kirchner is joining them. They’re being hoisted on their own Vattelian petard.

  179. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 21, 2015 at 12:22 pm #

    Notorial Dissent

    …. the Constitution stands as the Law of the Land and can not be willy nilly disregarded just because Svenski has her kjnickers in a twist.

    The political one percenters have convinced the political 99 percenters the De Facto Officer doctrine validates violations of the Constitution to ensure continuity. Not true. Nothing validates a violation of the Constitution unless it is derived from the will of the majority of the American people . A new, national governing document will have to ratified through a referendum.

    When the people use the ballot box to install an ineligible President and void the Constitution, continuity is derived from the fact the ineligible President stays in office as the chosen leader of the people and America survives as a nation of sovereign people.

  180. avatar
    Retired Lawyer June 21, 2015 at 3:12 pm #

    Sven, You have totally eviscerated every birther argument. Thank you.

  181. avatar
    RanTalbott June 21, 2015 at 6:21 pm #

    Lupin: I wonder if my quixotic efforts are finally having a result;

    Yes. And no 😉

    Yes, anti-birthers have learned much about history and legal philosophy from your “efforts”, and are able to have better-informed and less-emotion-based discussions of Vattel’s influence on the U.S.

    But no, the birfoons, for the most part, haven’t learned [bleep].

    Lupin: in his latest rant on the Original Gerbil report., Cmdr Kerchner is now no longer repeating the “two citizen parents” nonsense in connection with Vattel

    Alas, in his latest rant on his website, he again invokes what he calls his “Three-legged Stool Test”, which one might call “pere, mere, et terre”.

  182. avatar
    gorefan June 21, 2015 at 9:18 pm #

    Lupin: Vattel

    RanTalbott: Kerchner

    Apparently he got a response from Professor Kevin Gutzman who said that President Obama and Senator Cruz are eligible but Senator Rubio isn’t. He arrived at that by his French and English understanding of Vattel.

  183. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 22, 2015 at 7:41 am #

    Then that would make my half-brother American. The birth certificate is still a forgery made by me and a few others, however.

    Our father is Thomas Beauchamp Owens, Jr.

    My father, unknowingly, made the bomb that killed Jimmy Hoffa in the last quarter of ’81.

    Lupin:
    Wonders will never cease.

    I wonder if my quixotic efforts are finally having a result; in his latest rant on the Original Gerbil report., Cmdr Kerchner is now no longer repeating the “two citizen parents” nonsense in connection with Vattel, but appears to now focus on to the correct “the father alone transmits citizenship”.

  184. avatar
    Reality Check June 22, 2015 at 8:10 am #

    You should check out his appearance on the Mike Volin’s Blog Talk radio show. It was painful to listen to it. .

    Lupin: Seriously, you come across as barely literate. Did you finish high school? Or do you have an impairment like dyslexia?

  185. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 22, 2015 at 9:48 am #

    Reality Check:
    You should check out his appearance on the Mike Volin’s Blog Talk radio show. It was painful to listen to it. .

    Did Volin forget to mention Judy’s history in Domestic terrorism?

  186. avatar
    Reality Check June 22, 2015 at 11:47 am #

    Somehow that was left out of Judy’s bio. Am sure it was an oversight.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Did Volin forget to mention Judy’s history in Domestic terrorism?

  187. avatar
    Dave B. June 22, 2015 at 1:04 pm #

    Klayman covering himself in glory yet again:
    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/larry-klayman-blame-obama-charleston-shooting

  188. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 22, 2015 at 2:57 pm #

    Dave B.:
    Klayman covering himself in glory yet again:
    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/larry-klayman-blame-obama-charleston-shooting

    How come horrific shootings never happen to the likes of Klayman and Alex Jones? Why does it always have to be kids, or people just minding their own business? It’s never the s### stirrers who end up six feet under.

  189. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 22, 2015 at 7:31 pm #

    I have had a persistent conflict between good performance on the site and support for mobile devices. Put simply, when I cache pages (serve saved copies of pages rather than regenerating them again for ever user) the site runs much faster, but mobile devices using the mobile theme lose the ability to consistently switch back and forth between the mobile version and the desktop version.

    I have tried a number of caching solutions that didn’t work out for mobile devices or for other reasons. Most recently I began using the Falcon caching engine (no smart remarks please), and it too has a problem with mobile devices, and I had to turn it off. I’ve done some work, and now it’s back on.

    So if you have a problem switching between the mobile theme and the desktop theme on your mobile device, please drop me a comment on the contact page, including exactly what device, browser, and operating system exhibits the problem. I just tested it on my iPhone and it worked, but testing caches is tricky because they keep changing.

  190. avatar
    Northland10 June 23, 2015 at 9:46 am #

    Using Chrome on my Samsung, it has been staying on the desktop theme. Since I prefer this, I have not tried to switch back to mobile.

    I use Feedly to follow the comment feed and the desktop theme consistently goes to the actual linked comment. It is also easier to navigate posts with many comments.

  191. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 23, 2015 at 10:15 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: How come horrific shootings never happen to the likes of Klayman and Alex Jones? Why does it always have to be kids, or people just minding their own business?

    It would be poetic justice if someone ran amok at the NRA HQ which is, ironically, a gun-free zone.

  192. avatar
    J.D. Sue June 23, 2015 at 1:46 pm #

    Someone just sent me this old video/link from 2009, where a Maricopa sheriff’s deputy is found in contempt of court for stealing paperwork out of the file of a criminal defense attorney–and Arpaio then ordered the deputy to disobey the Judge’s order. Quite a video/story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDv6XUjcrhs

  193. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 23, 2015 at 8:16 pm #

    And, let’s hope nothing happens to either one of them. I am a huge Alex Jones fan and I am amazed at the material he continues to share on a daily basis with such honest enthusiasm.

    I’ll admit though, the material is so heavy that I have a very hard time listening to it without my blood pressure going high. There are some very disgusting “leaders” in our country going back decades.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: How come horrific shootings never happen to the likes of Klayman and Alex Jones? Why does it always have to be kids, or people just minding their own business? It’s never the s### stirrers who end up six feet under.

  194. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 23, 2015 at 10:29 pm #

    Nancy R Owens: I am a huge Alex Jones fan

    Well that explains why you come up with such silly conspiracy theories.

  195. avatar
    Kate June 24, 2015 at 1:53 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    And, let’s hope nothing happens to either one of them. I am a huge Alex Jones fan and I am amazed at the material he continues to share on a daily basis with such honest enthusiasm.

    I’ll admit though, the material is so heavy that I have a very hard time listening to it without my blood pressure going high. There are some very disgusting “leaders” in our country going back decades.

    “honest enthusiasm”? Alex Jones doesn’t have the capacity to be honest and neither do you, no wonder you’re such a fan of his. You both lie easily and repeatedly. Please, keep your ridiculous CT’s to yourself, share them with AJ fans, if necessary, but we don’t need any of his crap on here.

  196. avatar
    Kate June 24, 2015 at 4:07 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    Then that would make my half-brother American. The birth certificate is still a forgery made by me and a few others, however.

    Our father is Thomas Beauchamp Owens, Jr.

    My father, unknowingly, made the bomb that killed Jimmy Hoffa in the last quarter of ’81.

    Tough to keep all those dates accurate, isn’t it? When you tell the truth, you have no problem remembering when things happened. You originally said you killed Hoffa in 1980. Obviously, since you had nothing to do with his death, Escobar’s or any of the others you’ve claimed, you can’t remember what you’ve said before.

    Don’t you ever get tired of the b.s. you continuously spew? Do you enjoy being mocked? Considering your relentless fairy tales, it would appear that you have no shame.

  197. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 24, 2015 at 9:54 am #

    You wouldn’t know honesty if it can up and bit you in the ***, Kate. I didn’t open up the Alex Jones subject. Even if I had, this thread is an open thread and anybody can post anything they like so stop trying to censor me.

    Kate: “honest enthusiasm”?Alex Jones doesn’t have the capacity to be honest and neither do you, no wonder you’re such a fan of his.You both lie easily and repeatedly.Please, keep your ridiculous CT’s to yourself, share them with AJ fans, if necessary, but we don’t need any of his crap on here.

  198. avatar
    roadburner June 24, 2015 at 10:59 am #

    just seen the WND hatchet job on valerie jarrett, and went and looked at wiki which has had the text changed pretty much verbatim to what WND published…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valerie_Jarrett&type=revision&diff=668455292&oldid=667531190

    the part regarding her father doesn’t read particually well and smacks of a propaganda edit.

    any idea how to see who changed it doc?

  199. avatar
    Punchmaster via Mobile June 24, 2015 at 11:23 am #

    Nancy R Owens:
    And, let’s hope nothing happens to either one of them. I am a huge Alex Jones fan and I am amazed at the material he continues to share on a daily basis with such honest enthusiasm.

    I’ll admit though, the material is so heavy that I have a very hard time listening to it without my blood pressure going high. There are some very disgusting “leaders” in our country going back decades.

    Go play in traffic. I mean it. Go.

  200. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm #

    Punchmaster via Mobile: Go play in traffic. I mean it. Go.

    Ignore her. She does this for the attention. She’s a troll, plain and simple.

  201. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 24, 2015 at 1:15 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Ignore her.She does this for the attention.She’s a troll, plain and simple.

    That may be, but my sentiment was genuine.

  202. avatar
    justlw June 24, 2015 at 2:21 pm #

    roadburner: any idea how to see who changed it doc?

    It was done by someone not logged into a Wikipedia account, so so the edit is only associated to their IP address, which is registered to an ISP in Toronto.

    No way to tell for sure what other edits they’ve made before, because it’s most likely not a statically-assigned IP address. Judging from the quality of the edit, it’s probably not someone with a lot of familiarity with Wikipedia.

  203. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 24, 2015 at 3:27 pm #

    It’s not an IP address I know.

    Another modification:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valerie_Jarrett&diff=next&oldid=668483119

    added the words: ” Avowed Communist…from a long line of commies.”

    That was reverted then this was added:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valerie_Jarrett&diff=next&oldid=668494931

    “Her father, a pathologist and geneticist with a lengthy FBI file, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals. ”

    That was undone because it was “unsourced.”

    Those changes come from Monroe, Louisiana the home of one of Orly’s buddies.

    The communist reference was added back, and removed just a second ago before I could get to it.

    roadburner: any idea how to see who changed it doc?

  204. avatar
    Jim June 24, 2015 at 3:58 pm #

    My congrats go out to Doc and the OARPA anti-birther team for their development of an advanced search engine to track birthers no matter where they go or what they do on the web. Way to go team!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-search-engine-exposes-the-dark-web/

  205. avatar
    Nancy R Owens June 24, 2015 at 6:43 pm #

    This video with Mike Volin says it all.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a4f_1399501881

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: That may be, but my sentiment was genuine.