Main Menu

New Cruz lawsuit filed in Texas

Texas attorney Newton Boris Schwartz, Sr. has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Houston claiming that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president of the United States because he was born in Canada. The case is 4:16-cv-00106.

Schwartz appears to be an experienced attorney, appearing on the US District Court for the Southern District case search list over 170 times, yet he sues Cruz as an individual, or alternately as a representative of the class of all voters. Such approaches have met with universal failure for lack of standing in Obama eligibility, and one wonders why a real attorney would bother.

Here is the complaint with attachments.

,

50 Responses to New Cruz lawsuit filed in Texas

  1. avatar
    Reality Check January 15, 2016 at 8:15 am #

    I only see one page of the complaint. Interestingly the first exhibit is a long article from NBC’s blog with the letter from Tribe and Olson that was the basis for Senate Resolution 511 in 2008.

  2. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 15, 2016 at 8:50 am #

    Schwartz has a long and checkered and not particularly enviable record, and has been banned from practice twice I believe. Not an auspicious beginning or credentials I would say.

  3. avatar
    CRJ January 15, 2016 at 9:43 am #

    With [Standing] requirements the suit is doomed, however the venerable Liberal Judiciary Obama had protecting him, could turn on Cruz based on their own disdain for him Politically sending it to the U.S. Supreme Court quickly.

    CRUZ’s IMPRESSIVE DEBATE SKILLS
    Americans, everyone of us must ask why we do not agree that a Foreigner should rule in the Office of President even if they are smart and have experience in some form of Government?

    The Office of POTUS is a Key to the Military and Economy of the entire USA. It’s is our most vulnerable Position and our highest Ranked.

    Obama has in his Tenure of 7 Years signed for an additional near 10 Trillion in Debt. That’s 70K for every man, woman, and child. The debt due notice could yet cost more lives in America than ever in our History.

    Still think it’s not an important question?

    In the Debate Cruz like Obama minmized the importance of the Constitutional Qualification saying in affect we should move on to important questions and issues facing America.

    Cruz out right lied about Mr. Trumps mother needing to be a natural born Citizen that would include 3 generations instead of 2 Generations.

    [Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] includes the children born in the U.S to immigrants who become U.S. Citizens before the child’s birth. That’s 2nd Generation.

    So Cruz exaggerated the Claims of Birthers to further isolate us and in doing so compromise our National Security and well being through the POTUS Office.

    He is a skilled debater and most are unable to wrestle him down and pin him.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-charleston/2016/01/ted-cruz-goes-there-217816

  4. avatar
    Loren January 15, 2016 at 9:47 am #

    “Texas attorney Newton Boris Schwartz, Sr.”

    Oh, that’s sad. Not just because his parents gave him the name Newton Boris Schwartz, like he was the villain in a bad spy thriller, but because after growing up with that name, he apparently chose to inflict it on his SON as well.

  5. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 15, 2016 at 9:53 am #

    Get ready to start writing a lot more, Doc. It appears there is another one for Rubio in Florida:

    http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2016/01/marco-rubio-has-a-florida-court-challenge-on-his-eligibility-to-be-president-3094540.html

  6. avatar
    Arthur B. January 15, 2016 at 10:08 am #

    CRJ: Americans, everyone of us must ask why we do not agree that a Foreigner should rule in the Office of President even if they are smart and have experience in some form of Government?

    I think virtually all Americans agree that a foreigner should not be president.

    The question is, how does our legal system carve out that distinction? As you have seen over the years, the vast majority of our legal community agrees that Barack Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is eligible, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, having been born abroad to foreign parents, is not. Between those extremes are cases like that of Ted Cruz, on which reputable scholars have diverse opinions.

    If you consider yourself capable of handling the legal issues involved, by all means share your thoughts with us. But what usually happens in discussions like these is that, when subtle and complex issues arise, you resort to sloganeering and hand-waving in a weak attempt to cover your lack of competence on legal matters.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2016 at 11:17 am #

    Somehow my PDF file was mangled. I have repaired it and uploaded the new version.

    Reality Check:
    I only see one page of the complaint. Interestingly the first exhibit is a long article from NBC’s blog with the letter from Tribe and Olson that was the basis for Senate Resolution 511 in 2008.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2016 at 11:18 am #

    According to news reports Schwartz is leaning towards voting for Bernie Sanders.

    Notorial Dissent: Schwartz has a long and checkered

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2016 at 11:23 am #

    Schwartz addresses the “standing” problem:

    “Mr. Toubin also is unsupported or unsupportable in his contention that no one, but
    the candidates themselves have standing to challenge Senator Cruz’s candidacy. Every eligible registered voter has such standing.”

    Well! That settles that!

  10. avatar
    Sudoku January 15, 2016 at 11:43 am #

    The 85 years old Schwartz was pretty cavalier in the Bloomberg article.

    It’s so simple, I don’t know why it hasn’t been done before… (Paraphrasing)

  11. avatar
    bob January 15, 2016 at 12:34 pm #

    CRJ:
    With [Standing] requirements the suit is doomed, however the venerable Liberal Judiciary Obama had protecting him,could turn on Cruz based on their own disdain for him Politically sending it to the U.S. Supreme Court quickly.

    The judiciary neither is particularly liberal nor was it “protecting” President Obama; the courts merely applied the law. And if Judy knew anything about the law, he should know by now that it was conservatives who narrowed the definition of standing.

    Cruz out right lied about Mr. Trumps mother needing to be a natural born Citizen that would include 3 generations instead of 2 Generations.

    Judy doesn’t even understand his own imaginary “rule”: there’s no evidence that Trump’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of Trump’s birth.

  12. avatar
    Reality Check January 15, 2016 at 1:13 pm #

    Schwartz can’t even figure out the correct date for the general election. It’s November 8, 2016. Several times he refers to the November 1, 2016 general election.

  13. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 15, 2016 at 1:13 pm #

    Your argument is idiotic. President Obama has REDUCED the DEFICIT by three quarters. In other words, it is now 25% of the deficit he was left by President Bush. It is a factual statement that President Obama has cut the federal budget more than any President in our history. Your statistics (as in “lies, dammed lies and statistics”) show a rudimentary and juvenile understanding of the economics of our national debt—something that is detrimental to our political dialogue and would be inconceivably dangerous in a president. Yet another reason (as if we needed one) that you are unfit to be dogcatcher, let alone POTUS.

    CRJ: Obama has in his Tenure of 7 Years signed for an additional near 10 Trillion in Debt. That’s 70K for every man, woman, and child. The debt due notice could yet cost more lives in America than ever in our History.

  14. avatar
    bgansel9 January 15, 2016 at 2:09 pm #

    Nancy – the Before It’s News link doesn’t have any link to proof of this court challenge against Rubio. Where is that proof? Before It’s News is a conspiracy site and not known for it’s veracity with the truth.

  15. avatar
    bob January 15, 2016 at 2:19 pm #

    bgansel9:
    Nancy – the Before It’s News link doesn’t have any link to proof of this court challenge against Rubio.Where is that proof? Before It’s News is a conspiracy site and not known for it’s veracity with the truth.

    It’s Voetz’s suit — he sued Cruz and Rubio.

  16. avatar
    bgansel9 January 15, 2016 at 2:28 pm #

    bob: It’s Voetz’s suit — he sued Cruz and Rubio.

    Which means it will probably have no standing and go nowhere? I want to see the Supreme Court address one of these lawsuits and finally come up with a definition of Natural Born Citizen so we can all get on the same page.

  17. avatar
    gorefan January 15, 2016 at 2:40 pm #

    bob: It’s Voetz’s suit — he sued Cruz and Rubio.

    When is Cruz required to respond? That’s what i want to see – his defense. Does he only focus on standing and barely mention NBC?

  18. avatar
    bob January 15, 2016 at 3:19 pm #

    bgansel9: Which means it will probably have no standing and go nowhere? I want to see the Supreme Court address one of these lawsuits and finally come up with a definition of Natural Born Citizen so we can all get on the same page.

    Rubio’s motion to dismiss extensively argues Voeltz’s lack of standing. (And, also, that Rubio is a natural-born citizen because he was born in the United States.)

    I assume Cruz will focus mostly on standing, as that is the dispositive issue.

  19. avatar
    Sam the Centipede January 15, 2016 at 3:21 pm #

    There you go again, Slarti, using facts and reason.

    That’s completely unfair. The truth isn’t about facts, about reason, about law, about reality. It’s about what idiots believe in their foolish fantasy worlds.

    But apply a simple rule: if Judy has written something, then it’s either foolish or it’s a lie or – most commonly – it’s a foolish lie!

    So when Judy says the judiciary is liberal, the reality must be that the judiciary is conservative, probably highly conservative.

    When Judy says President Obama has increased the deficit, the reality must be that President Obama has reduced the deficit, probably by a large amount.

    Judy is almost Orlyesque in his inability to say anything that is either intelligent or correct … and the probability of his saying something that is both intelligent and correct is closer to zero than nothing minus nothing. It’s even less probable than your hero, Mario Apuzzo, writing a short comment in which he admits his error.

    Slartibartfast:
    Your argument is idiotic.President Obama has REDUCED the DEFICIT by three quarters.In other words, it is now 25% of the deficit he was left by President Bush.It is a factual statement that President Obama has cut the federal budget more than any President in our history.Your statistics (as in “lies, dammed lies and statistics”) show a rudimentary and juvenile understanding of the economics of our national debt—something that is detrimental to our political dialogue and would be inconceivably dangerous in a president.Yet another reason (as if we needed one) that you are unfit to be dogcatcher, let alone POTUS.

  20. avatar
    Dave B. January 15, 2016 at 4:56 pm #

    Page 15 of the exhibits is some of the best work I’ve seen in a birther filing.

  21. avatar
    Steve January 15, 2016 at 5:27 pm #

    Since Donald Trump would probably have standing, I wonder why he doesn’t file a suit himself.
    But I guess he benefits more from keeping the controversy alive rather than resolving it.

  22. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen January 15, 2016 at 6:35 pm #

    Steve:
    Since Donald Trump would probably have standing, I wonder why he doesn’t file a suit himself.
    But I guess he benefits more from keeping the controversy alive rather than resolving it.

    Drumpf doesn’t bring suit himself probably because he believes there’s a good chance he’ll lose. This way, stirring concern, suits Drumpf just fine. And he doesn’t have to hire a lawyer to do so.

  23. avatar
    ZixiOfIx January 15, 2016 at 6:42 pm #

    I would like to see Congress address the issue. According to Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con­stitution, it is their job to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

    Congress could address it with or without a case in mind, and they could do so at any time.

    bgansel9: Which means it will probably have no standing and go nowhere? I want to see the Supreme Court address one of these lawsuits and finally come up with a definition of Natural Born Citizen so we can all get on the same page.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2016 at 7:03 pm #

    It would give me something to write about, but from what I read it is NOT going to happen. There won’t be any repeat of S. Res. 511 on McCain.

    ZixiOfIx: I would like to see Congress address the issue.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 15, 2016 at 7:09 pm #

    What’s weird is that the URL is our venerable commenter NBC’s blog NBC was a strong proponent of the idea that natural born citizens must be born in the county.

    Dave B.: Page 15 of the exhibits is some of the best work I’ve seen in a birther filing.

  26. avatar
    Dave B. January 15, 2016 at 7:12 pm #

    With NBC’s commentary included. And the ad for shoedazzle. Maybe he’s fishing for sponsorship.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    What’s weird is that the URL is our venerable commenter NBC’s blog.

  27. avatar
    donna January 15, 2016 at 8:53 pm #

    Ted Cruz Inherits Obama’s Birthers

    Ridiculed for their theories about Obama’s birth certificate, leading birthers now see their vindication in new questions about Sen. Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for president.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/natemcdermott/ted-cruz-inherits-obamas-birthers#.suZA9OjBgN

    Ahhh it’s so nice when old friends return for a visit!

  28. avatar
    Rickey January 15, 2016 at 10:40 pm #

    donna:

    Ahhh it’s so nice when old friends return for a visit!

    Cody Robert Judy must be upset that they didn’t ask for his opinion.

  29. avatar
    CRJ January 15, 2016 at 11:01 pm #

    @Arthur B [If you consider yourself capable of handling the legal issues involved, by all means share your thoughts with us. ]

    It is the Publicity that is so hard to handle at the same time. You guys will love this!

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/688203671943774212

    @Rickey [Cody Robert Judy must be upset that they didn’t ask for his opinion.]

    Yes, the whole world now knows the arbitrary Denial of the Motion for Forma Pauperis and the #waronpoor plus they have my opinion.

    You must have enjoyed how the Argument set out the Case for the destruction of The SCOTUS Court based on Cruz disabeling life tenure, gay marriage, and Obama’care?

  30. avatar
    Rickey January 16, 2016 at 12:01 am #

    CRJ:

    It is the Publicity that is so hard to handle at the same time. You guys will love this!

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/688203671943774212

    You must be referring to the sidebar which says “Judy v. Obama – Strike Out.” You consider that to be good publicity?

    @Rickey [Cody Robert Judy must be upset that they didn’t ask for his opinion.]

    You must have enjoyed how the Argument set out the Case for the destruction of The SCOTUS Court based on Cruz disabeling life tenure, gay marriage, and Obama’care?

    I have no idea what that word salad is supposed to mean. Do you want to try again, hopefully in plain English?

  31. avatar
    CRJ January 16, 2016 at 1:25 am #

    @Rickey [You must have enjoyed how the Argument set out the Case for the destruction of The SCOTUS Court based on Cruz disabeling life tenure, gay marriage, and Obama’care?

    I have no idea what that word salad is supposed to mean. Do you want to try again, hopefully in plain English?]

    Well.., if you read @Doc [ Here is the complaint with attachments.]

    Then you’d know the part of his complaint that threatens the U.S. Supreme Court Justices and also their recent decisions.

    I seemed to recall, and I can’t say as I remember who exactly, on this Blog mocking me a bit about my own Cert threatening the #SCOTUS Court with their own extinction if they did not handle this Eligibility Case Question.
    Writ here:
    “2015 U.S. Supreme Court Judy v. Obama Writ Certiorari ” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/262436958

    Q-2 specifically elaborated
    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/688235012005572608

    You can mock this Texans name,Newton Boris Schwartz, Sr but for 87 he’s seeing the same thing as I am in my question. It was interesting to notice he was a D pulling for Sanders., but as a D the concerns of the ability for an ineligible conservative to root out SCOTUS and their decisions EXIST.

    He elaborated in his complaint the threat Cruz poses as an ineligible Presidential Candidate to the SCOTUS Court Justices in their Seats of Life Tenure being yanked by the Presidential Administration of Ted Cruz in an effort to destabilize their recent rulings of ObamaCare and Same-sex Marriage, Pro-Choice, even the Union.

    Pg 26
    [Senator Cruz has the unfettered right to do campaign on the promise to: appoint Justices that will be committed to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) and same sex marriage (2015). Prof. Tribe found that troubling as do many]

    Pg 12-13
    [ It is relevant or may become very relevant in Texas Governor Abbott’s call for a Constitutional Convention to amend the U.S. Constitution and potentially revoke specific certain Supreme Court decisions, including Roe v. Wade, ante 1973, and same sex
    marriages, ante 2015. Texas was a republic from 1836 until its admission to the union in 1845 with a right reserved to be divided into five separate and independent states. Texas Governor Greg Abbott called for a Constitutional Convention to (a) amend the U.S. Constitution and expand the Eleventh Amendment “states rights”; and (b) revoke the above Supreme Court decisions; and (c) to divide into five states. [ Senator Cruz proposal limiting prior lifetime terms of federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices], revoking Obamacare, the addition for five additional Texas States. This is an idea Senator Cruz, might consider if the voting goes to ballots in the Republican Convention] added emphasis mine.

    This is what he is alluding to. Hey, you guys might think Obama is really cool and love all he does, but the same ineligibility on a Conservative Extremist like Cruz could wipe out what you hoped to save in much the same way Libs have enjoyed Obama.

    It’s a tinder box. That’s what he’s saying and that’s what I’ve been trying to say. We both have said it. You don’t think it can happen in reverse with Ted Cruz but it CAN!

    That’s why it so important [natural born Citizen] ie. [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents]

  32. avatar
    CRJ January 16, 2016 at 1:42 am #

    Of course.. Maybe I’m mistaken and you want that all to happen so your plans working out?

    1- Pro-Choice Reversed
    2-Same-Sex Marriage Reversed
    3-Healthcare Reversed
    4- SCOTUS life tenure dissolved
    5-Union Dissolved

    I don’t know? You all seemed to have been defending Cruz’s Eligibility pretty hard although some have backed off that defense a little.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2016 at 6:29 am #

    Ah, you noticed that our our political leaning is not the basis for our opinion on eligibility, but rather an honest examination of the facts. It’s what separates us from birthers.

    CRJ: I don’t know? You all seemed to have been defending Cruz’s Eligibility pretty hard although some have backed off that defense a little.

  34. avatar
    CRJ January 16, 2016 at 8:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: our political leaning is not the basis for our opinion on eligibility, but rather an honest examination of the facts.

    It’s True, that may be in Fact your Opinion on Eligibility.

    However, given the desire of our Founders Soverignty Based Integrity [ natural born Citizen ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] you would have to admit is a much “Happier Barrier” from the arrest by Foreigners in our Counsels.

    Two Generations Doc

    And while you may argue an Originalist stand, I have to say our Founders would say ” Your out of your mind ”

    Because they would see, what was in their history, the same as I do mine. You have perhaps some idea of mine as I’ve been given quite a bit of heat for it here on this Blog, but you really are not taking my Experience as any kind of a ‘Warning’ for yourself, and that’s the reason I am here, and the reason I have suffered what I have, and the reason I do care.

    Much more than I am credited for here,

    That is also why I would argue, that though perhaps I’m the worst speller here, I represent a very sound Balance and moderate stand in comparison to Cruz Hillary Sanders Trump and Rubio who I view as much more Extremist than myself.

    It may be sad commentary that Experience teaches us lessons, but it does teach lessons.

  35. avatar
    CRJ January 16, 2016 at 8:45 am #

    The Regrets of my past I have had more cause for repentance and sorrow for are those that were mine in not caring.

    These might be explained as I do in my book -[Taking A Stand – the Conservtive Independent Voice- ] by stating my Focus was naively centered on myself and my family.

    It was regretfully a narrow mindedness of naivety.

    What my Experience taught me was the concerns of a much bigger Tent, and that is emblem of my entry into the Political Arena fighting against what I myself had been.. Hoping that I could be a Warning to the People of where they were headed unless their focus was also changed.

    My success was not dependant upon my wins. My success was as one Crying In the Wilderness. You guys articulate it I believe as “whining” ?

  36. avatar
    Curious George January 16, 2016 at 10:48 am #

    Washington Post Opinion: Cruz not eligible to be president.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/ar-CCrkXb

  37. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 16, 2016 at 11:09 am #

    Mr. Judy,

    You continue to show by your own lack of integrity that you can’t understand our integrity. None of us here believe in a definition of natural born citizenship because it makes President Obama eligible, we believe that President Obama is eligible because the law is clear that he is. Rafael Cruz is in a different situation, but again, our only concern is the law, which is ambiguous in this case.

    You, on the other hand, keep implying that the only reason for our supporting President Obama’s eligibility (and denying Rafael’s) is political. It appears that you can’t conceive of people having honorable motives for their actions—most likely because you don’t have honorable motives for anything you do nor have you ever shown the slightest hint of integrity.

    CRJ:
    Of course.. Maybe I’m mistaken and you want that all to happen so your plans working out?

    1- Pro-Choice Reversed
    2-Same-Sex Marriage Reversed
    3-Healthcare Reversed
    4- SCOTUS life tenure dissolved
    5-Union Dissolved

    I don’t know? You all seemed to have been defending Cruz’s Eligibility pretty hard although some have backed off that defense a little.

  38. avatar
    Rickey January 16, 2016 at 12:04 pm #

    CRJ:
    Of course.. Maybe I’m mistaken and you want that all to happen so your plans working out?

    1- Pro-Choice Reversed
    2-Same-Sex Marriage Reversed
    3-Healthcare Reversed
    4- SCOTUS life tenure dissolved
    5-Union Dissolved

    I don’t know? You all seemed to have been defending Cruz’s Eligibility pretty hard although some have backed off that defense a little.

    What a President Cruz may or may not want to do once in office has absolutely nothing – repeat, nothing – to do with whether he is Constitutionally eligible to be President. I would never vote for Cruz, but the fact that I don’t support him doesn’t mean that I am convinced that he is not eligible. And if I become convinced that he is eligible, it doesn’t mean that I support him.

    And the questions about his eligibility have nothing to do with the fact that just one of his parents was a U.S. citizen. Not even Mr. Schwartz agrees with your “two citizen parent” theory. As he says in his Complaint regarding Obama’s eligibility, “It was his birth in Hawaii that was decisive.”

  39. avatar
    CRJ January 16, 2016 at 1:21 pm #

    Rickey: fact that I don’t support him doesn’t mean that I am convinced that he is not eligible. And if I become convinced that he is eligible, it doesn’t mean that I support him.

    And the questions about his eligibility have nothing to do with the fact that just one of his parents was a U.S. citizen.

    Perhaps you’d like to go over the Laws of his birth at the Time?
    IF ITS LAW YOU SEEK Cruz and Obama- were not born under the window of Law between 1790 and 1795. If its Law you seek… and that seems a relevant [Fact]or] Here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2016/01/updated-congressional-research-service-report-on-presidential-eligibility/#comments

    Let me argue in the #SCOTUS Court about the Laws or Facts [at the TIME of Birth].

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/688411311407939584

    Policy Manuel
    http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter4.html

    Bottom of the page where notes are. Look at number 1. Click on citizenship chart. The asterisks below it explain the laws that were in effect during time of both Cruz’s and Obama’s birth(s). (See TWITTER also pictured here)

    1952-1978 Governing Law
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

    Derivative Citizenship”
    Chart on gov website
    McCarran Walter act was in effect during that time. Per that law, also known as Public law 414, Cruz was NOT a citizen at birth.

    Section 320: Children born outside the United States of alien parent and citizen parent. Child does not receive US Citizenship unless alien parent naturalizes by time child turns 16.

    There are over 400 sections to that act. That section remained in effect until 1978.

    Ted’s Father, Rafael Cruz obtained Canadian citizenship in 1973 and ultimately became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005. Ted was 35 years old.

    Obama’s father never naturalized

    This is simply legal Proof Ted Cruz is not a [natural born Citizen] and his claim rest in Title 8 under naturalization if he has claim, as is stated in Judy v. Obama 14-9396.

    Obama is not [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] either. So is not a [ natural born Citizen] as the Writ of Certiorari states.

    This should show you many of our Naturalization Laws have to do with one or the other Parent but none have to do with [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents as natural born Citizen] definition.

    Deductive Reasoning Skill

  40. avatar
    CRJ January 16, 2016 at 1:50 pm #

    That information sent to every one of Ted Cruz contributors has the Value of 39 Million Dollars so far..

    But none of these Candidates for President worth millions and billions care to inform them. Here I am filing forma Pauperis and ridiculed as valueless.

    That is the Reason if I had to condense it in a nutshell that the Anti Establishment is exploding in the Political Arena.

    But do Candidates like myself get any credit.. No. It’s funneled to the Rich Candidates who neither know the Law or Defend it ( take your pick), simply seeking to excuse themselves from it.

    Woe is me. Lol 😂 Cheers Guys🍺

    @Arther B you can read it

    I’m reading “2015 U.S. Supreme Court Judy v. Obama Writ Certiorari ” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/262436958

  41. avatar
    Arthur B. January 16, 2016 at 1:52 pm #

    CRJ: Obama is not [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] either. So is not a [ natural born Citizen] as the Writ of Certiorari states.

    This should show you many of our Naturalization Laws have to do with one or the other Parent but none have to do with [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents as natural born Citizen] definition.

    Deductive Reasoning Skill

    You’ve got to be kidding.

    You claim to have shown by deductive reasoning that Pres. Obama is not constitutionally eligible for the presidency?

    Would you care to state clearly the premises that support that conclusion?

  42. avatar
    Scientist January 16, 2016 at 1:59 pm #

    Trump is ineligible, being born in New York City, which is clearly not part of the US in any real sense (just ask Ted Cruz and those who cheered his attack on “New York values”). Not to mention his mother is Scottish and he is entitled to a UK passport upon the payment of a registration fee and the establishment of “good character” (OK, that could be a problem).

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 16, 2016 at 5:15 pm #

    Uhhh, he could pardon Obama.

    Rickey: What a President Cruz may or may not want to do once in office has absolutely nothing – repeat, nothing – to do with whether he is Constitutionally eligible to be President.

  44. avatar
    bob January 16, 2016 at 5:30 pm #

    CRJ:
    It is the Publicity that is so hard to handle at the same time. You guys will love this!

    Judy gets excited that an exhibit in a soon-to-be-dismissed lawsuit contains the captions for years-old comments on a blog; comments that discuss Judy’s previous failings in court. Judy is that desperate for attention.

    You must have enjoyed how the Argument set out the Case for the destruction of The SCOTUS Court based on Cruz disabeling life tenure, gay marriage, and Obama’care?

    Judy’s fantasies are neither interesting nor engaging.

    CRJ:
    You can mock this Texans name,Newton Boris Schwartz

    Schwartz’s suit is silly (and not the first, despite what Schwartz claims), and will soon be dismissed due to lack of standing.

    This is what he is alluding to. Hey, you guys might think Obama is really cool and love all he does, but the same ineligibility on a Conservative Extremist like Cruz could wipe out what you hoped to save in much the same way Libs have enjoyed Obama.

    As other has said, people here wouldn’t claim Cruz is ineligible just because they don’t like his politics.

    That’s why it so important [natural born Citizen] ie. [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents]

    Except Judy’s imaginary “rule” has no basis in U.S. law (or culture); Judy continues to lie when he claims otherwise.

    CRJ:
    However, given the desire of our Founders Soverignty Based Integrity [ natural born Citizen ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] you would have to admit is a much “Happier Barrier” from the arrest by Foreigners in our Counsels.

    If Judy sincerely believed that requiring the president (and vice president) to have two U.S.-citizen parents would be superior than the current requirements, his time would be better spent lobbying to amend the U.S. Constitution, and wasting his life here.

    I have to say our Founders would say ” Your out of your mind ”

    Judy conduced a séance with the Framers, and didn’t invite anyone else.

    CRJ:
    The Regrets of my past I have had more cause for repentance and sorrow for are those that were mine in not caring.

    Yet Judy cares not about the thousands that he terrorized.

    Hoping that I could be a Warning to the People of where they were headed unless their focus was also changed.

    Judy has been a warning, but not in the manner he thinks.

    but you really are not taking my Experience as any kind of a ‘Warning’ for yourself

    On the contrary, Judy’s poor choices and the consequences that he suffered are a warning for others to not commit the crime that he did.

    that’s the reason I am here, and the reason I have suffered what I have, and the reason I do care.

    The only reason Judy is here is because it is the only place he receives attention. Judy prefers unrelenting harsh criticism of him, his beliefs, his lifestyle, and his choices over being ignored.

    Yes, the whole world now knows the arbitrary Denial of the Motion for Forma Pauperis and the #waronpoor plus they have my opinion.

    There is no “War on Poor” because the denial of Judy’s IFP application was routine and caused by his inability to follow simple directions, nothing more.

    That is also why I would argue, that though perhaps I’m the worst speller here, I represent a very sound Balance and moderate stand in comparison to Cruz Hillary Sanders Trump and Rubio who I view as much more Extremist than myself.

    Unlike Judy, none of those people terrorized thousands (in the same of religion). Judy is about as extreme as one can get.

    Also, all of them are highly intelligent, well educated, and vastly successful in life; Judy is none of those things.

    My success was as one Crying In the Wilderness. You guys articulate it I believe as “whining” ?

    Judy may think he is successful if he cries in the wilderness, but this blog is not the wilderness. Judy should his uninvited whinings to the actual wilderness, and not impede the otherwise intelligent conversation that others are trying to have.

    CRJ:

    Let me argue in the #SCOTUS Court about the Laws or Facts [at the TIME of Birth].

    Judy’s frivolous ramblings are not worthy of any court, let alone SCOTUS.

    Obama’s father never naturalized

    President Obama was born in Hawaii. Full stop. Judy’s imaginary two-citizen-parent “rule” has never been the law.

    Deductive Reasoning Skill

    Judy’s ramblings show neither deduction, reasoning, nor skill.

    CRJ:
    Here I am filing forma Pauperis and ridiculed as valueless.

    Because Judy’s beliefs have no value.

  45. avatar
    Rickey January 16, 2016 at 10:12 pm #

    CRJ:

    1952-1978 Governing Law
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

    Derivative Citizenship”
    Chart on gov website
    McCarran Walter act was in effect during that time. Per that law, also known as Public law 414, Cruz was NOT a citizen at birth.

    Section 320: Children born outside the United States of alien parent and citizen parent. Child does not receive US Citizenship unless alien parent naturalizes by time child turns 16.

    Unsurprisingly, you don’t know what you are talking about. Section 320 only applied to children born abroad, of one alien parent and one U.S. citizen parent, who did not qualify for automatic citizenship at birth under Section 301(a)(7):

    NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

    SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the
    United States at birth:

    (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
    States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
    alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the
    birth of such person, was physically present in the United States
    or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less
    than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age
    of fourteen years
    : Provided, That any periods of honorable service
    in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent
    may be included in computing the physical presence requirements
    of this paragraph.

    Section 320 is part of the Naturalization chapter of the law. It doesn’t apply to children born abroad who were automatically citizens at birth. Ted Cruz qualified for citizenship at birth because his mother was physically present in the United States for her entire life prior to moving to Canada in 1967,

    Obama’s father never naturalized

    Irrelevant, because Obama was born in the United States.

    Obama is not [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] either. So is not a [ natural born Citizen] as the Writ of Certiorari states.

    Obama isn’t required to have two citizen parents, or even one citizen parent, because he was born in the United States.

    This should show you many of our Naturalization Laws have to do with one or the other Parent but none have to do with [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents as natural born Citizen] definition.

    This should show you that you can’t cherry pick sections of statutes out of context and arrive at a correct conclusion.

    Deductive Reasoning Skill

    Maybe one day you will develop it. You certainly don’t have it now.

  46. avatar
    Rickey January 16, 2016 at 10:18 pm #

    CRJ:

    But do Candidates like myself get any credit.. No. It’s funneled to the Rich Candidates who neither know the Law or Defend it ( take your pick), simply seeking to excuse themselves from it.

    You don’t get any credit because you don’t deserve any credit.

    And you aren’t entitled to a dime of the money which is contributed to other candidates.

  47. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 19, 2016 at 7:12 am #

    Rickey, i will disagree with you to a point, Judy gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, campaign contributions, which is NONE.

    Rickey: You don’t get any credit because you don’t deserve any credit.

    And you aren’t entitled to a dime of the money which is contributed to other candidates.

  48. avatar
    Rickey January 19, 2016 at 7:53 pm #

    Notorial Dissent:
    Rickey, i will disagree with you to a point, Judy gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, campaign contributions, which is NONE.

    Fair enough!

    I wonder if Judy has made an accounting of how he has spent his campaign contributions, meager though they are.

    And he also received some contributions to pay for his SCOTUS filing fees, which he never paid. I wonder if he refunded that money to the people who were foolish enough to contribute.

  49. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 19, 2016 at 8:12 pm #

    That was rhetorical, right??? Although, maybe someone should get a copy of his filings with the FEC to see if he’s been following the rules there.

    Rickey: Fair enough!

    I wonder if Judy has made an accounting of how he has spent his campaign contributions, meager though they are.

    And he also received some contributions to pay for his SCOTUS filing fees, which he never paid. I wonder if he refunded that money to the people who were foolish enough to contribute.

  50. avatar
    bob January 19, 2016 at 8:58 pm #

    Rickey:I wonder if Judy has made an accounting of how he has spent his campaign contributions, meager though they are.

    McDonald’s and Redbox. Seriously.

    And he also received some contributions to pay for his SCOTUS filing fees, which he never paid. I wonder if he refunded that money to the people who were foolish enough to contribute.

    Grifters gotta grift.