Main Menu

Trump promises to write book on Obama eligibility

Business Insider came up with a quote from Donald Trump interview with CNN that begs for a mention here:

Who knows? Who cares right now? We’re talking about something else, OK? I mean, I have my own theory on Obama. Someday I’ll write a book. I’ll do another book. It’ll do very successfully.

There’s hardly a day that goes by that I don’t dislike Donald Trump even more.

Trump also said that Cruz should seek a “declaratory judgment” from federal court to settle the matter of his eligibility to be President, reports CNN. The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.S § 2201 authorizes declaratory judgments, although I do not have the qualifications to say whether it would apply in the case of Ted Cruz.

Steven Lee Craig attempted to obtain a declaratory judgment that he was a “natural born citizen” in federal court, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said that he had no “right” to obtain certification of that status. I think an important distinction in that dismissal was that the only special right of a “natural born citizen” is eligibility to be President, and Craig was not a candidate for President.

, , ,

56 Responses to Trump promises to write book on Obama eligibility

  1. avatar
    CRJ January 7, 2016 at 5:17 pm #

    Hence the Challenge has been issued

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/685196003738136576

    I was really surprised to see Rep. Pelosi join in
    Nancy Pelosi DoorOpenOn #Birther ? #SCOTUS Ted Cruz's eligibility – https://t.co/FIkaRAYl2I https://t.co/w9E90oo0Lg via @TedCruzolizer

    This one though was the Roast Beef
    White House teases Cruz over US citizenship https://t.co/VuB0eXumOb

    The real Rub is the complaints about how much it would have cost to let Judy v. Obama 14-9396 proceed, and how much Media is being wasted on the issue?

    Kind of let’s you know it would have been much cheaper or cost effective to pitch in and help me when you could have.

    It would be settled.

  2. avatar
    ArthurWankspittle January 7, 2016 at 5:18 pm #

    “Trump promises to write book…”
    Objection – assumes facts not in evidence.

  3. avatar
    Nancy R Owens January 7, 2016 at 5:40 pm #

    Yet.

    ArthurWankspittle:
    “Trump promises to write book…”
    Objection – assumes facts not in evidence.

  4. avatar
    Rickey January 7, 2016 at 5:52 pm #

    CRJ:

    The real Rub is the complaints about how much it would have cost to let Judy v. Obama 14-9396 proceed, and how much Media is being wasted on the issue?

    Kind of let’s you know it would have been much cheaper or cost effective to pitch in and help me when you could have.

    It would be settled.

    No, your pitiful, inept lawsuit would not have resolved anything.

    First of all, the Supreme Court would not have granted you cert, even if you had been allowed to proceed IFP.

    Second, Ted Cruz was not a defendant in your lawsuit. If your intention was to disqualify Cruz, you should have named his as a defendant.

    Third, the circumstances of Obama’s birth and Cruz’s birth are different. Obama was born in the U.S. and Cruz was not. Your lawsuit was against Obama, not Cruz.

    The citizen ship of Obama’s parents is irrelevant because he was born in Hawaii.

    All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen. – Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)

  5. avatar
    bob January 7, 2016 at 6:31 pm #

    CRJ:
    Hence the Challenge has been issued

    Like most everything Judy does (except for terrorizing thousands), this futile gesture will be never seen and ignored.

    The real Rub is the complaints about how much it would have cost to let Judy v. Obama 14-9396 proceed, and how much Media is being wasted on the issue?

    Judy continues to not accept responsibility for his inability to follow SCOTUS’ directions.

    Kind of let’s you know it would have been much cheaper or cost effective to pitch in and help me when you could have.

    Helping Judy frivolously pursue his frivolously lawsuit would have been (wait for it!) a frivolous gesture that would have had no outcome on the present discussion concerning Cruz’s eligibility.

  6. avatar
    Steve January 7, 2016 at 7:39 pm #

    ArthurWankspittle:
    “Trump promises to write book…”
    Objection – assumes facts not in evidence.

    When is he going to read a book?

  7. avatar
    Kate January 7, 2016 at 7:57 pm #

    Trump hasn’t written any of his own books and I don’t think he’s going to start doing so with President Obama. It would be based on his own misunderstanding of the facts regarding the President’s birth, from Trump’s lies about his grandmother telling everyone who would listen that she was there for his birth to PBO having spent millions to hide his birth certificate, seal his school records and using an EO to stop anyone from viewing them for years to come. Trump would have to find someone that would be willing to repeat all his lies about PBO and whoever he found would be of such low standing in the literary community that there’s no chance of such a book doing well. Only hard-core birthers would buy it and once PBO is out of office, they will shrink even further in number. Unless Trump should try to pursue him legally, the birthers will lose interest in anything he has to say, believing he’s been bought off or similar nonsense.

  8. avatar
    Steve January 7, 2016 at 8:06 pm #

    Does the Supreme Court do declaratory judgements?

  9. avatar
    bob January 7, 2016 at 8:48 pm #

    Steve:
    Does the Supreme Court do declaratory judgements?

    SCOTUS is (primarily) an appellate court; it would review the judgment of a lower court. It wouldn’t hear this particular issue as an original matter.

    And this isn’t an issue where a declaratory judgment is available (or how declaratory judgments work generally). If Trump wants a court ruling on Cruz’s eligibility, then Trump should sue Cruz.

  10. avatar
    Dave January 7, 2016 at 9:29 pm #

    I persist in not being a lawyer, but I will go out on a limb anyhow.

    While Trump cannot ask for a declaratory judgement about Cruz, that isn’t what Trump was suggesting. He was suggesting that Cruz ask for it.

    The hurdle in asking for a declaratory judgement is establishing that there is an “actual controversy.” An example would be if somebody repeatedly threatened to sue you, but did not file suit, and you are being inconvenienced by the unresolved threats, you can use the threats as establishing the existence of an actual controversy and ask for declaratory judgement.

    At present I doubt Cruz could establish an actual controversy, as nobody who even maybe (e.g. Trump) has standing has done more than make insinuations. But perhaps it could happen in the future.

  11. avatar
    Rickey January 7, 2016 at 10:11 pm #

    Trump could conceivably write the shortest book in publishing history:

    “Why My Investigators Found in Hawaii”

  12. avatar
    bob January 7, 2016 at 10:14 pm #

    Dave:
    While Trump cannot ask for a declaratory judgement about Cruz, that isn’t what Trump was suggesting. He was suggesting that Cruz ask for it.

    The hurdle in asking for a declaratory judgement is establishing that there is an “actual controversy.”

    Among the things Trump doesn’t understand is that Cruz can’t simply ask for a declaratory judgment from a court. That’s basically an advisory opinion, and courts don’t do that. In other words, Cruz just can’t (essentially) sue himself.

    If Trump wants a court to determine Cruz’s eligibility, Trump should sue Cruz, alleging Cruz is ineligible. But it is pretty clear that Trump is content to insinuate that Cruz in ineligible, but not actually sue Cruz.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 7, 2016 at 10:45 pm #

    I would expect Mr. Voeltz’ lawsuit to be dismissed, but one has been filed. Cruz could point to the 226 Obama lawsuits to establish the likelihood of him being sued repeatedly, which is some sort of harm, even if the suits are dismissed. A declaratory judgment is sought in anticipation of a lawsuit, and the “right” Cruz is trying to establish is his eligibility to run for president.

    Usually declaratory judgments are sought in state court in pre-election challenges, but I found a Louisiana case in which a candidate sought and received a declaratory judgment in state court that he was eligible to run. He was challenged anyway and the court ignored the prior declaratory judgment. The appellate court agreed, saying:

    “The trial court correctly rejected that argument and gave no effect to the declaratory judgment. A candidate cannot deprive the electors of the right to challenge his qualification for the office he seeks by preemptively having himself declared qualified in an action to which the electors are not parties.”

    http://www.kplctv.com/story/6366844/full-letter-of-attorney-generals-opinion-on-breauxs-eligibility

    In a Texas case Brian Birdwell, got an eligibility determination in court, but the decision was criticized on similar grounds–that there was only one party in the case, and all he evidence was for the one side.

    Here is a case where a plaintiff represented by the ACLU sued the of Iowa, requesting a declaratory judgment that she was eligible to vote. The issue in the case was a matter of interpretation of Iowa law. The case was dismissed, but I haven’t been able to find any information as to why. The case is being appealed.

    https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/griffinbranstadpetition.pdf

    Dave: At present I doubt Cruz could establish an actual controversy, as nobody who even maybe (e.g. Trump) has standing has done more than make insinuations. But perhaps it could happen in the future.

  14. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 8, 2016 at 12:21 am #

    My question is who is making these “complaints about how much it would have cost to let Judy v. Obama 14-9396 proceed”? The only thing I’ve heard is Judy’s continual whining, and I wouldn’t bet that beyond the members of the two boards who keep him around as an object of ridicule and comedy relief that anyone outside these groups even knows who he is or about his silly assed loser of a lawsuit, or much less cares.

  15. avatar
    Rickey January 8, 2016 at 12:51 am #

    My comment above should have been “What My Investigators Founds in Hawaii.”

  16. avatar
    CRJ January 8, 2016 at 3:46 am #

    @Dave [At present I doubt Cruz could establish an actual controversy, as nobody who even maybe (e.g. Trump) has standing has done more than make insinuations. But perhaps it could happen in the future.]

    Enjoyed your comment. Interesting thoughts.

    Disagreed a little on the [Controversy] PART. Cruz has found himself and his whole Campaign on the saw-horse., the same one Mr. Carson enjoyed as he was beginning a surge in Trumps rearview mirror.

    As a Candidate, I’ve noticed a real Drivers Seat View that I just don’t think people sense unless they are in the seat of that car running around the track.

    Controversy? Holy 22 Pages on Googling #BIRTHER and # NATURAL BORN CITIZEN Today.,
    it’s actually incredible to me!

    Rep Nancy Pelosi,Sen. John McCain, The White House Press Secretary, Multi-Billionaire Mr. Trump Ann Counter, Rush Limbaugh, 3 time Supreme Court Case Plaintiff and D Pres. Candidate Cody Robert Judy – not quite sure you could have BIGGER PLAYERS on the chess board articulating Controversy ALL! whom represent the principle of [natural born Citizen] is unsettled!

    That is in Trump Terms HUUGE! Especially when if you listen to the clackers around here, you’d surmise anyone feeling the Principle unsettled was infirm, incompetent, down right ignorant, and stupid. I’ve been called all of them.

    The Facts remain the U.S. Supreme Court has NEVER in the HISTORY of the United States weighed in between two Candidates for President on the Terms of Article II., Section 1, C-5’s [natural born Citizen] clause.

    And rather then man-up in support for the SCOTUS to hear the Case of the Century Judy v. Obama 14-9396 , Anti-Birthers would rather have it unheard?

    How strange. It seems slightly cowardly if you want to know the Truth.

    Judge Napolitano was asserted as stating that Cruz and Obama’s circumstance of having a foreign Father Parent are similar.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/01/07/judge-andrew-napolitano-obamas-eligibility-not-important-because-hes-in-the-last-year-of-his-presidency/

    But the Judge also said Obama’s eligibility circumstances are Moot because he’s in the last year of his second term.

    That insinuation however also asserts that if a Usurper Robber robs the Office you have stashed your life savings in, spends it, there is a statute of limitations for recovering your life savings of 7 years. After that it’s to bad, so sad, so sorry.

    I do disagree with that, and think the insinuation is destructive of our Republic. My witness attest how long and hard a road to the U.S. Supreme Court can be in the ripening doctrine.

  17. avatar
    The Magic M January 8, 2016 at 6:15 am #

    Dave: The hurdle in asking for a declaratory judgement is establishing that there is an “actual controversy.” An example would be if somebody repeatedly threatened to sue you, but did not file suit, and you are being inconvenienced by the unresolved threats, you can use the threats as establishing the existence of an actual controversy and ask for declaratory judgement.

    There’s got to be a sh*t ton of case law about this, given that people would necessarily misinterpret this law a lot, as in “hey cool, I’ll get the court to resolve this legal question I have”.

    There is an equivalent legal construct in Germany (“(negative) Feststellungsklage”). However that implies that you actually sue someone (in your example, the person who repeatedly threatened to sue you). It’s the legal equivalent of “put up or shut up”.

    W.r.t. US law, I wonder who would be the “other side” in such a declaratory judgment case in the present issue. After all, if “such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree“, there’s got to be someone on the other side to counter your claims. The government? Donald Trump?
    How does that work exactly?

  18. avatar
    CRJ January 8, 2016 at 11:54 am #

    @Notorial Dissent [ I wouldn’t bet that beyond the members of the two boards who keep him around as an object of ridicule and comedy relief that anyone outside these groups even knows who he is or about his silly assed loser of a lawsuit]

    Yeah..No Body.

    Cody Robert Judy Scribd
    Forty Three Thousand Views of Seventy Legal Documents.
    https://www.scribd.com/user/18895027/Cody-Robert-Judy

    335,000 Views on the Blog 600 Posts
    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/685494315271913476

    COURT CASES AND OTHER CASES OF ACTION
    1) Judy v. McCain Las Vegas, Nevada 2008 U.S. Fed. 2)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Ballot Challenge Executive Court 3)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Superior Court 4)New Hampshire State Supreme Court 5)Judy v. Obama Georgia Ballot Challenge Executive Court 6)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Superior Court 7)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Supreme Court 8)Judy v. Obama Ballot Challenges United States Supreme Court 12-5276 9)Judy v. Obama Utah U.S. Fed Court 10)Judy v. Obama Utah Division Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver, Colorado) 11.) Judy v. Obama U.S. Supreme Court 14-9396

    Other Courts
    12-10th Amendment Trial New York witness in the CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial
    13-Amicus Curiae Filed in Berg v. Obama 2008
    14-Amicus Curiae Filed in Keyes v. Obama Judge Carter case
    15-Amicus Curiae Filed in Military Court if Lt. Terry Lakin

    The proceeding referenced Court actions have been within the three Presidential Races 2008, 2012, and 2016.

    Eighty Thousand Views
    YouTube CodyJudy
    https://m.youtube.com/user/Code4Pres

    Your probably right.. No One.
    (?)

    Of course it is True that is a dot on the Planet Earth 🌎 and 335K on the Blog includes about 5K views from 15 Foreign Countries so it’s not all American.

    It has been my humble honor to be associated with you all. That you know my name is quite an honor for me. The Remarkable Expedition of my journey is nearly beyond my own comprehension considering I did not take typing in high school.

    Learned to type in about 1997 in a class offered in Prison. I was 32 years old then and I also took a C+ computer class. I had only 6 College credits at that time in my life.

    Since graduated w a BS in Psychology and just 2 classes short of 3 minors Sociology, Political Science, and Buisness with an accumiltive 3.7 GPA. The D in zoology really hurt. lol

    Owned and operated 4 Buisnesses, General Contracted in Building, Professionally Trained and Shown Horses Nationally , been a Professional Musician w 7 Albums heard around the Globe and been a Dad to 4 kids.

    Authored a Book- Taking A Stand the Conservative Independent Voice, had over 200 Feature Editorials Published, Run for President 3X, U.S.Senator 2X, and U.S. Rep 1X.

    If I passed away tomorrow I would look back at the words to my First Lovely Wife pointing at the House I had just built myself saying at age 25, “You see that House, that is the smallest thing I wish to accomplish in my Life”, as fullfilled. The words terrified her knowing how difficult it had been.

    It really has been a remarkable journey I’m extremely greatful for. To live out Dreams is a Dream come True. Praise God. What remarkable intelligence has descended from heaven making it all possible.

    I just turned 50

  19. avatar
    bob January 8, 2016 at 12:10 pm #

    The Magic M:
    W.r.t. US law, I wonder who would be the “other side” in such a declaratory judgment case in the present issue. After all, if “such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree“, there’s got to be someone on the other side to counter your claims. The government? Donald Trump?

    Generally speaking, a declaratory judgment declares the rights between two or more parties who have potentially competing interests. So the people on the other side have to have skin in the game. Like other candidates. Like Trump.

    Otherwise, as Doc discovered, you end up with sham opinions that get ignored.

  20. avatar
    Rickey January 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm #

    CRJ:

    COURT CASES AND OTHER CASES OF ACTION
    1) Judy v. McCain Las Vegas, Nevada 2008 U.S. Fed. 2)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Ballot Challenge Executive Court 3)Judy v. Obama New Hampshire State Superior Court 4)New Hampshire State Supreme Court 5)Judy v. Obama Georgia Ballot Challenge Executive Court 6)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Superior Court 7)Judy v. Obama Georgia State Supreme Court 8)Judy v. Obama Ballot Challenges United States Supreme Court 12-5276 9)Judy v. Obama Utah U.S. Fed Court 10)Judy v. Obama Utah Division Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver, Colorado) 11.) Judy v. Obama U.S. Supreme Court 14-9396

    Other Courts
    12-10th Amendment Trial New York witness in the CIA Columbia Obama Sedition and Treason Trial
    13-Amicus Curiae Filed in Berg v. Obama 2008
    14-Amicus Curiae Filed in Keyes v. Obama Judge Carter case
    15-Amicus Curiae Filed in Military Court if Lt. Terry Lakin

    The proceeding referenced Court actions have been within the three Presidential Races 2008, 2012, and 2016.

    And in how many of those cases did your “legal arguments” prevail?

    Listing all of your failures does nothing to enhance your credibility.

  21. avatar
    Rickey January 8, 2016 at 12:56 pm #

    CRJ:

    And rather then man-up in support for the SCOTUS to hear the Case of the Century Judy v. Obama 14-9396 , Anti-Birthers would rather have it unheard?

    How strange. It seems slightly cowardly if you want to know the Truth.

    We already know the truth. President Obama is a natural born citizen, born in Hawaii.

    Your “Case of the Century” was never going to be heard because it was poorly written, inartfully argued, nearly incomprehensible, and replete with misspellings, grammatical errors, and tortured syntax.

    But mostly it was never going to be heard because it was FRIVOLOUS.

    Although most of us believe that Cruz is eligible, even though we loathe his politics, I for one would be happy to see the issue of his birth in Canada be resolved by the Supreme Court. However, I see only one way of that rising to an actual controversy that would get to the Supreme Court:

    1. A lower court would have to rule that Cruz is not eligible.
    2. The lower court ruling would have to be upheld by the Court of Appeals.

    If that were to happen, I believe that the Supreme Court would grant cert.

  22. avatar
    bob January 8, 2016 at 12:57 pm #

    CRJ:
    I just turned 50

    Judy just turned 50, and he silll thinks he is known because he has comparatively few hits on some social media sites, and has filed a series of frivolous lawsuits that have had no effect on anything. In his decade-plus time pretending to be a candidate, less than (what?) 100 people have cumulatively voted for him over multiple elections; Judy is nothing more than a rounding error.

    Judy, however, is infamous: all search engine results highlight who he truly is — the person who terrorized thousands by his claiming to have an explosive device.

  23. avatar
    CRJ January 8, 2016 at 1:24 pm #

    @Bob [So the people on the other side have to have skin in the game. Like other candidates. Like Trump.]

    I agree

    From a Birther stand point, of course, I see Trump as one very smart Porcupine attacking Cruz via the Public Court of Public Opinion.

    Trump is using the Ammo he knows best and which he commands in a Big Public Trial of Cruz. Trump is avoiding the Legal Courts because they are less predictable and a loss in. court hurts him Officially right now, much more than Talking Points.

    This is kind of the magic mojo of affecting Courts without being in them. Of course @Notorial Dissent is correct, CRJ has no where near the magic mojo Trump does in the Public Court.

    Of course the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Golf Court can only look from afar as Trump makes Policy a Reality in the Public Court.

    This is of course the way of the world. My heart ❤ has been that Justice would flow down from the Court in a Constitutional Stand recognised by everyone, rather than the Tabloid Constitution that Trump has command over.

    If the Court had taken Courage on my Case Judy v. Obama 14-9396 in either Direction it saw fit, that would be strikingly effecting the conversation now in a different way.

    You say I’m “whining” but isn’t that all you are doing about Trump? Whining?

    The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court had it in the palm of their hand to make a Declarative Judgement and a Ruling Opinion on the [natural born Citizen] question WITH a defacto President in the White House as U.S. President.

    Anti-Birthers could not ask for any Better of a T to hit a monster booming drive out 350 yards that Trump would have been diminished by credibly.

    They just refused to T it up. . which is Why D U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi , U.S. Sen John McCain are still out stirring the mud up stating the Principle is not settled.

    Do you think it’s better for the Country to wait for 2 MAJOR Candidates to be divided in a 49/51 split on the popular vote and have the 49% walk into the U.S. Supreme Court trying to dismiss the 51% based on not being a [ natural born Citizen] ?

    Or use the Gift of some cowboy in Utah to put a Brand on the [natural born Citizen] interpretation in Judy v. Obama 14-9396 so the Country could laugh at him being a [Loser], and come together in a United way for future Elections with a much greater understanding for All Government Elected Officials?

    Now, if your a dedicated national socialist I can hardly comprehend with Obama in the White House for 7 years, not saying, “You BETCHA! We would love to ride that horse.”

    You have the TOTAL ADVANTAGE but your looking at the tiny little picture that for some really stupid reason involves the “Ego of the Loser” ?

    If you wanted to form a more ludicrous twit sunk argument you could not do it. It has ALL and every ADVANTAGE for you, like a fine meal on a silver platter.

    How on God’s green Earth do you refuse that unless you’re much much more stupid than Trump?

    The only thing I can consider is in your hearts you are scared that your wrong. That’s the only thing I can think of.

    I’m not sure any Lawyer with half a brain would not leap for the Case as a slam dunk for progressive change that’s sought. . but Hillary Clinton just is not that brillant of a lawyer and avoiding the win seems her knack.

    She will lose to Trump and the SCOTUS has delegated respect to Trump.

    Enjoing the Apple Pie in your Eye?

  24. avatar
    Rickey January 8, 2016 at 2:14 pm #

    bob: Generally speaking,a declaratory judgment declares the rights between two or more parties who have potentially competing interests. So the people on the other side have to have skin in the game. Like other candidates. Like Trump.

    Otherwise, as Doc discovered,you end up with sham opinions that get ignored.

    Precisely. Declaratory actions frequently arise in contract actions, such as disputes over insurance coverage. An insurance company which believes that its insurance policy provides no coverage for a claim may file a declaratory action asking a court to rule on whether it must provide coverage, but the party making the claim has to be joined in the action.

    If Cruz were to file a declaratory action he would have to join all of the parties who might conceivably want to challenge his eligibility, or as you say it would no effect upon those who are not joined.

  25. avatar
    Rickey January 8, 2016 at 2:21 pm #

    CRJ:

    I’m not sure any Lawyer with half a brain would not leap for the Case as a slam dunk for progressive change that’s sought. . but Hillary Clinton just is not that brillant of a lawyer and avoiding the win seems her knack.

    The only lawyers who have shown any interest in taking birther cases are those with half a brain – Mario Apuzzo, Larry Klayman, etc. And even those lawyers weren’t interested in your “Case of the Century.”

    Hillary Clinton has run for public office twice. She won once and lost once. How does that compare with your record?

  26. avatar
    Arthur January 8, 2016 at 3:07 pm #

    bob: Judy just turned 50, and he silll thinks he is known because he has comparatively few hits on some social media sites,

    There are YouTube videos of crying babies that have more hits than Judy’s material. Hell, videos of barking dogs have more hits, even videos of barking dogs urinating on crying babies have more views. Significantly, they all make more sense then the crap Judy excretes.

  27. avatar
    CRJ January 8, 2016 at 4:11 pm #

    @Aurthur [ There are YouTube videos of crying babies that have more hits than Judy’s material. Hell, videos of barking dogs have more hits, even videos of barking dogs urinating on crying babies have more views.]

    More Pie?

    Pie-In-The-Sky #SCOTUS misses #Birther Opinion Judy v. Obama 14-9396 for Politicians Pelosi & McCain Open NBC Quest

    We hope our Government Branches do not attract the attention of the General Public with bad behavior too. Let them enjoy their Life. That’s where the TRUST comes in.

    When you see Anti Establishment creep in it is a sign of lost TRUST. This is Trumps success. You are helping by not SEEING OPPORTUNITY.

    It’s been there, and the BIRTHER PIE-In-the-Sky has not been decided by major talking Elected Leaders
    As soon as your through thinking insulting me does you any good, you will SEE what has been missed.

    Pie-In-The-Sky #SCOTUS misses #Birther Opinion Judy v. Obama 14-9396 for Politicians Pelosi & McCain Open NBC Quest

    https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/685565706113400840

  28. avatar
    Reality Check January 8, 2016 at 4:52 pm #

    Is there an ignore function here?

  29. avatar
    bob January 8, 2016 at 6:17 pm #

    CRJ:
    As a Candidate, I’ve noticed a real Drivers Seat View that I just don’t think people sense unless they are in the seat of that car running around the track.

    Judy has filed a singular FEC form; he is not a bona fide candidate.

    And rather then man-up in support for the SCOTUS to hear the Case of the Century Judy v. Obama 14-9396 , Anti-Birthers would rather have it unheard?

    Because Judy brought a stupid, frivolous case. Judy would bring his one-wheeled tricycle to the Indy 500 and he think all the other drivers are scared that he’ll win.

    How strange. It seems slightly cowardly if you want to know the Truth.

    Cowardly is terrorizing thousands, and then denying doing that.

    That insinuation however also asserts that if a Usurper

    As President Obama was twice duly elected, he is not an usurper.

    CRJ:
    From a Birther stand point, of course, I see Trump as one very smart Porcupine attacking Cruz via the Public Court of Public Opinion.

    Smart but cowardly. If Trump wants a court to rule, Trump needs to file a lawsuit. It is cheaper and easier to scare the electorate, and let chumps like Judy do all the work; none of that is definitive or legally binding.

    CRJ has no where near the magic mojo Trump does in the Public Court.

    Judy has no mojo whatsoever.

    Of course the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Golf Court can only look from afar as Trump makes Policy a Reality in the Public Court.

    Because judges don’t initiate lawsuits. If Trump’s tactics cause Cruz to lose at the ballot box, then Cruz deserves to lose.

    If the Court had taken Courage on my Case Judy v. Obama 14-9396 in either Direction it saw fit, that would be strikingly effecting the conversation now in a different way.

    It is not SCOTUS’ fault that Judy can’t follow directions.

    You say I’m “whining” but isn’t that all you are doing about Trump? Whining?

    Judy is whining over milk so split that the floor is already dry again. Discussing contemporaneous events is not whining.

    The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court had it in the palm of their hand to make a Declarative Judgement and a Ruling Opinion on the [natural born Citizen] question WITH a defacto President in the White House as U.S. President.

    Judy continues to show that he no idea how the courts actually work. And Judy fails to understand the message SCOTUS is sending by not taking up cases that already affirmed President Obama’s eligibility.

    They just refused to T it up. . which is Why D U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi , U.S. Sen John McCain are still out stirring the mud up stating the Principle is not settled.

    They hate Cruz; they’re trolling him.

    Do you think it’s better for the Country to wait for 2 MAJOR Candidates to be divided in a 49/51 split on the popular vote and have the 49% walk into the U.S. Supreme Court trying to dismiss the 51% based on not being a [ natural born Citizen] ?

    If competent people can’t or won’t settle the issue, then the Electoral College or Congress will resolve the issue. As the U.S. Constitution requires.

    Or use the Gift of some cowboy in Utah to put a Brand on the [natural born Citizen] interpretation in Judy v. Obama 14-9396 so the Country could laugh at him being a [Loser], and come together in a United way for future Elections with a much greater understanding for All Government Elected Officials?

    Judy’s frivolous lawsuit could not and would not have resolved these issues.

    The only thing I can consider is in your hearts you are scared that your wrong. That’s the only thing I can think of.

    Judy’s imagination limits him, as no one is scared; the reason is no one wants waste precious resources on such frivolity.

    As soon as your through thinking insulting me does you any good

    Judy understands that no one is insulting him; they are attempting him show him reality, which he continuously refuses to acknowledge.

    Reality Check:
    Is there an ignore function here?

    Concur.

  30. avatar
    Voice of Reason January 8, 2016 at 9:03 pm #

    Mr. Judy, I am an attorney who works in a high level appellate court. Let me explain something to you.

    There are thousands and thousands and thousands of legal issues and legal arguments that the United States Supreme Court has never addressed and will never address. That is because many, many legal arguments are *stupid* legal arguments that are not worth the Court’s time and attention.

    This is one of them. The Supreme Court will never rule on your arguments because your arguments are stupid and meritless and and not worth their time.

    I have nothing against you, you seem like a sincere person, but you are deeply delusional about the merits of your arguments and the significance of your endless legal filings.

    Every appellate court has a handful of people that file endless, repetitive suits and briefs in propria persona that go nowhere. 99.9 percent of what they file is hot garbage, but the people who file them are not educated enough or stable enough to realize that what they are filing is worthless. They just don’t understand.

    You should move on with your life. This is a dead end.

  31. avatar
    RanTalbott January 8, 2016 at 9:14 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Is there an ignore function here?

    Only the one you bring, between your ears 🙁

    There’s a sort-of “nuclear option” of unsubscribing from threads, but that has the undesirable side-effect of “ignoring” other comments you’d like to see. I’ve used it occasionally, when a thread on a particular topic has wound down, and there’s pretty much nothing new but the loons and those responding to them. But it doesn’t work at all well if there’s still serious discussion by the sane going on.

  32. avatar
    Reality Check January 8, 2016 at 10:01 pm #

    I suppose I could read something into the fact that Judy chooses to leave his incomprehensible dribbles here instead of at Birther Report. I know why Nancy comments here. She is banned at BR and Doc is nice enough to let her post here. I think even Judy knows the average commentor at BR is a buffoon and at least here he can interact with sane people.

    There is some merit to Foggy’s compromise of setting up the FEMA camp section of the Fogbow for trolls like Judy and Nancy. At least you have to make a conscious decision to go read their nonsense.

    RanTalbott: Only the one you bring, between your ears 🙁

  33. avatar
    Keith January 9, 2016 at 12:01 am #

    Rickey: The only lawyers who have shown any interest in taking birther cases are those with half a brain

    Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence.

  34. avatar
    Dave B. January 9, 2016 at 12:06 am #

    The idea of Trump writing a book reminds me of that old Utah Phillips story about Spiro Agnew’s library burning down. Lost both books. Hadn’t even finished coloring one of them. Man, would Utah be tearing this stuff up.

  35. avatar
    Lupin January 9, 2016 at 3:27 am #

    Voice of Reason: I have nothing against you, you seem like a sincere person, but you are deeply delusional about the merits of your arguments and the significance of your endless legal filings.

    Judging from his posts here, despite his Uriah Heep impersonation (or maybe because of it) Judy is, in fact, a rather appalling individual.

    He has expressed zero remorse for his crime, no contriteness for his victims, and instead has doubled down (as it were) on his actions, and many of his posts here reek of blatant xenophobia, not to say racism.

    Don’t be fooled by the meek tone and ostentatious, pious words; he really is an awful man.

  36. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 9, 2016 at 4:09 am #

    Don’t forget stupid, ignorant, and most importantly boring.

  37. avatar
    CRJ January 9, 2016 at 12:12 pm #

    @Reality Check [At least you have to make a conscious decision to go read their nonsense.]

    And don’t forget respond to it. The pain and suffering I do here is difficult to bear. Please do not think my care , concern, and love for you is vain.

    Were it not for me you would be regulated to [Reading softwearl iscence agreements and clicking “Accept”.

    @Reality Check
    [ I think even Judy knows the average commentor at BR is a buffoon and at least here he can interact with sane people.]

    Luke 5:32 ” I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”

    [Mr. Judy, I am an attorney who works in a high level appellate court. ( so.. You’re a Clerk.. yes) Let me explain something to you. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of legal issues and legal arguments that the United States Supreme Court has never addressed and will never address. (true..less than 5% are granted Cert) That is because many, many legal arguments are *stupid* legal arguments that are not worth the Court’s time and attention.

    ( True, however, the insinuation that the Qualifications of [ natural born Citizen] in the Highest Office in the United States is ‘stupid’ only magnifies your intelligence standing in and regarding the stupid department. You try very hard to dismiss a very sweet and dear Principle in the hearts ❤ of Americans as a stupid thing. Like suing the Warden for AirJordons instead of Converse. This exposes your bankruptcy. You are totally bankrupt. You neither understand not have the slightest understanding of the Mantle of the President. Of the intelligence you provide persevered in 1787 the jurisdiction of the Independence of the United States of America would never have been known. That makes you a monkey. .capable of being trained and even hitting the occasional jump shot, but certainly not playing in the NBA because you don’t have that kind of intelligence. Now, it would be quite another thing if you understood the stupid department You preside in, but you dont. But I still like you, and have hope for you. )

    This is one of them. The Supreme Court will never rule on your arguments because your arguments are stupid and meritless and and not worth their time. ( if you were an attorney.. You would know that is simply untrue because an attorney knows there are two sides to each coin. You are saying there is not. .and trying to ruin their Profession. That makes them hate you for it destables their employment. )

    I have nothing against you, ( Now, your not telling the whole truth) you seem like a sincere person, but you are deeply delusional about the merits of your arguments and the significance of your endless legal filings. ( You have exagerated your own claim here. “Endless” is a term used that also means Eternal , Infinite, and Constant. My Motion for Forma Pauperis was not denied based on Rule 39.8. Abusive or Excessive filings if we were to take the conservative understanding of your statement in to consideration. If we took the liberal understanding in to consideration you have just manifested your own state-of-mind as a perfect interpretation of “Delusional”. Which are you, conservative or liberal?)

    Every appellate court has a handful of people that file endless, repetitive suits and briefs in propria persona that go nowhere. 99.9 percent of what they file is hot garbage, but the people who file them are not educated enough or stable enough to realize that what they are filing is worthless.]

    (That 99.9 reference puts your grandiosity at the Highest level. Your in the top 99.9 of that class. That again is not an indication of intelligence and you failed to recite your sources.

    Your head is like a balloon to pretend the allegory is paralleled with a situation and circumstance that very high level Officials in the U.S. Government concur, on both sides of the Major Political Parties isle in the Congress of the United States of America , is unsettled and an open door.

    Your respect for such is pathetic really. I know Doc has tried to regulate the concern to about 9% Of Republicans presumably to marginalize and isolate. But other statitics have rated the concern at 65% of Republicans and 40% Of Democrats at different times. Indeed most would concurr who are sound of mind that the sheer volume of Mass and MainStream Media attention given to the Principle of the qualifications of President are evidence of profound importance and vital urgency to our well being as a Nation.

    http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/02/romney-and-birthers.html?m=1

    I do not see frivolous or wholly obsurd in that witness. We do not see this kind of Media attention on issues that differentiate the term of credit and merit from frivolousness ie. The beds in prison are not fluffy. The got garbage was not picked up Thursday let me sue the city for the value of my house.

    It wasn’t even a good try.

  38. avatar
    CRJ January 9, 2016 at 1:05 pm #

    Some times I need you to forgive my spelling and gramatic, and syntax errors for simple Timing reasons rather then as evidence of a deteriorated mental disorder.

    Special emphasis on TIME and available Help.

    [No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the TIME of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;]

    Admired the article revealing Mr. Trumps penchant for sleeping in his own bed. It allowed him TIME to conduct business in the morning along with balancing his Campaign responsibilities.

    I really appreciated and understood that.
    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0UM17220160108

  39. avatar
    CRJ January 9, 2016 at 1:22 pm #

    @Reality Check re not knowing any Democrats for Trump.. Recall when you said you didn’t know any and listed a 8% likability stat?

    This 20% is Why if Democrats do not abandon Hillary and support me they lose to Trump. Sanders definitely loses.. No chance for O’Malley.

    Yes, I do think I can beat Trump. I can get Democrats and Anti Establishment Crowd and cut his base. Then Democrats win the White House in an statistically unprecedented and against the odds third term.

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-08/new-poll-shows-donald-trump-is-a-real-threat-to-hillary-clinton

    Convincing Democrats who are stupid and don’t see the road ahead is my problem, of course that includes convincing a few Billionaires too.. Lol

    You know, just saying that and realizing the power of my Record is an understanding of Value. What you call mud is in fact gold.

    But it takes Wise Men to know that.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 9, 2016 at 1:46 pm #

    I think I have reported polling results fairly, and I have not tried to select results for for some effect. I did report the 9% number, but it was not “of Republicans.” I also reported back in 2011 that 51% of Republicans thought Obama was born outside the country. See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/polls/

    CRJ: I know Doc has tried to regulate (sic) the concern to about 9% Of Republicans presumably to marginalize and isolate.

  41. avatar
    Reality Check January 9, 2016 at 4:26 pm #

    CRJ

    I no longer read your jibberish.

    CRJ: @Reality Check

  42. avatar
    Rickey January 9, 2016 at 4:44 pm #

    CRJ:
    @Reality Check re not knowing any Democrats for Trump.. Recall when you said you didn’t know any and listed a 8% likability stat?

    That was me, not RC. Your lack of attention to detail is appalling.

    Yes, I do think I can beat Trump.

    As I have said previously, you are delusional.

    I can get Democrats and Anti Establishment Crowd and cut his base. Then Democrats win the White House in an statistically unprecedented and against the odds third term.

    Statistically unprecedented? The Democrats won the White House in five consecutive elections from 1932-1948. Did you not know that?

  43. avatar
    Rickey January 9, 2016 at 5:19 pm #

    The Court of Appeals succinctly explained why Judy’s lawsuit against Obama was frivolous. Judy failed to cite any case law to support his claim that he was entitled to relief under § 1983.

    Judy cites no basis in law for his claim that he is entitled to damages under § 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act. Even taking all his allegations as true and construing them in the light most favorable to his case, we see nothing even suggesting that he would ever be entitled to any sort of relief for President Obama’s (and the other Defendants’) supposed wrongdoing. Judy cannot point to a single case that construes any of these statutes in a way supporting his claims for relief. Next, because we see no scenario where he would be entitled to relief under § 1983, the Sherman Act, or the Clayton Act, we also agree with the district court that his complaint was frivolous.

    Judy failed to comprehend that even if the defendants were properly served and failed to respond, he was not entitled to a default judgment because his lawsuit was frivolous and failed to state a claim for relief.

    Judy argues that he was entitled to default judgment because he had submitted evidence establishing that he properly served the Defendants in this case and that they failed to timely respond. Alternatively, Judy argues that even if the Defendants weren’t served, the district court erred by not compelling service of process. None of this matters. 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.

    Judy argued that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint sua sponte. He was ignorant of the fact that case law requires the court to review complaints and dismiss them sua sponte if they are clearly baseless, as Judy’s was.

    Judy takes issue with the district court’s sua sponte decision to dismiss his complaint under § 1915(e)(2). He argues that in doing so the court acted as Defendants’ counsel. Contrary to Judy’s position, the court was obligated to dismiss his complaint sua sponte under § 1915(e)(2)’s screening mechanism. See c.f. Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007) (concluding that courts must screen sua sponte under § 1915(e)); Neizke , 490 U.S. at 327 (concluding that the statute “accords judges . . . the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless”). We see no error in the district court’s sua sponte action.

    Judy responded by filing a word salad cert petition to the Supreme Court which again failed to cite any legal precedent, was largely incomprehensible, and was replete with grammatical errors, misspellings, and tortured syntax.

    In 2014 a pro se plaintiff named Bobby Chen filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court. Chen was born in China and English is his second language. Nevertheless, he managed to file a correct in forma pauperis application (which was granted) and he correctly cited a case in another district which conflicted with the District Court’s ruling in his case. Bobby Chen did everything right and was granted cert; Cody Robert Judy did everything wrong and we all know what happened to his case.

  44. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 9, 2016 at 10:01 pm #

    Or to put it succinctly, something else he also seems incapable of doing, He failed to state a case, or and at least one that could be even remotely undifferntiated and unclear whinings don’t count, identified, he failed to state any law or facts that were supported by the law or reality, and he asked for no reasonable or possible relief that could be granted by law. The fact that he is also incapable of forming or generating a comprehensible document doesn’t help his case. The lower courts who dismissed his suits did so for valid reasons, that he refuses to accept or acknowledge.

  45. avatar
    CRJ January 9, 2016 at 10:28 pm #

    @Rickey oh man.. You just busted me up. 😂

    Just read this interesting Though Provoking article about the trouble Democrats are in if they lose NY and FL speaking of what may be in Trumps book?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/04/thought-experiment-what-if-trump-carried-new-york/

    Now to address your Post
    [ he managed to file a correct in forma pauperis application (which was granted) and he correctly cited a case in another district which conflicted with the District Court’s ruling in his case]

    You forgot Judy filed Forma Pauperis in over half a dozen cases which were granted like Chen. How could you miss that Bud?

    What you can’t wrap your head around, and I understand is , the U.S. Supreme Court not using Rule 39.8 on my Denied Motion for Forma Pauperis, when the two lower courts granted it , and in fact the U.S. Supreme Court granted the 2 years prior in 2012 and the 2013 Review.

    @PostOpinions @Milbank Convinced #SCOTUS & Dana R4 #CivilWar ? #BIRTHER PIE-IN-THE-SKY
    https://t.co/Ai9rIWtrOH
    &
    https://t.co/fkIlQGeYHr

    Now, should we get past that being crooked-as-hell for the U.S. Supreme Court to do, cited in the article and video, and we get down to the idea I didn’t cite SCOTUS Precedent case the Lower Courts did not uphold there’s an argument for Minor v. Happersett issued by the #SCOTUS that you seemed to either gloss over, or be in denial about.

    You do have to admit , as a Fact, Minor v. Happersett is indeed a SCOTUS Case.

    You also must admit as a Fact it’s cited in the District Court, 10th Circuit, and in the Writ of Cert for SCOTUS.

    NOW, interestingly enough, hahaha, it’s actually kind of funny that the 10th Circuit cites a Fact that I CANNOT cite a single case where a Presidential Candidate successfully argued a case against another Presidential Candidates eligibility as a [ natural born Citizen ]

    Don’t you think that’s funny?!

    There has never been one Case in U.S. History!!! 😂😂😂

    You know you get all of these Judges and Lawyers together in the bar complaining about nothing original any more and then, .. Lol.. They slap something in the face that is.

    Now, it just common sense that the Lower court and the 10th Circuit was telling the SCOTUS we don’t have a protocol will you please handle this for us. Its obvious!

    There’s never been one in U.S. History. Serious.. Go find one?

    My case if it was granted Forma Pauperis, almost certainly is GRANTED CERT.

    The only failure of 12-5276 was that it wasn’t a Federal Rights or Federal Act Claim. That’s it.

    Do you know something I’m kind of proud of? My cases have NEVER been dismissed or denied on :

    1- The Doctrine of Standing
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
    2- The Political Doctrine Question
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine

    That’s actually saying quite a lot! I am very very proud of all my Judges for not dismissing or denying me on those grounds. It makes my Case THAT MUCH MORE credible to any Legal Scholar reading it that shows some kind of Judicial Corruption going on.

    There is a saying I say, “Tis far better to capture the ❤ hearts ❤ of men than the minds of men. For the heart thinketh in Truth for there also is Love. But the mind can change and drifts with the wind, justifying not the heart, but itself in confusion. ”

    Tis far better for me to have every attorney in the Nation love me for what I tried to do, should have been allowed to do, but was stopped from doing based on Bad Behavior and injustice.

    I will be remembered in all of History for it. Like “Tin Cup” who shot a 12 on the last hole of The PGA OPEN.

    No, he didn’t Win. . but we will never forget that 12.

  46. avatar
    Rickey January 10, 2016 at 1:16 am #

    CRJ:

    Just read this interesting Though Provoking article about the trouble Democrats are in if they lose NY and FL speaking of what may be in Trumps book?

    It’s been more than 30 years since the Democrats last lost New York. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in New York, 49%-24%.

    You forgot Judy filed Forma Pauperis in over half a dozen cases which were granted like Chen. How could you miss that Bud?

    You have filed for IFP status only twice at SCOTUS. You were granted IFP status in 2012 but were turned down in 2015. The fact that is was granted in 2012 was no guarantee that it would be granted again. You refuse to post your 2015 IFP application, but it appears that you failed to comply with the SCOTUS clerk’s instructions.That’s on you, bud.

    You do have to admit , as a Fact, Minor v. Happersett is indeed a SCOTUS Case.

    You also must admit as a Fact it’s cited in the District Court, 10th Circuit, and in the Writ of Cert for SCOTUS.

    You still have a reading comprehension problem, I see.

    Minor v. Happersett has no relevance to whether you are entitled to relief under § 1983. You failed to state a claim for relief, so every other argument you made was immediately rendered moot. Besides, Minor v. Happersett doesn’t mean what you believe it means.

    NOW, interestingly enough, hahaha, it’s actually kind of funny that the 10th Circuit cites a Fact that I CANNOT cite a single case where a Presidential Candidate successfully argued a case against another Presidential Candidates eligibility as a [ natural born Citizen ]

    Don’t you think that’s funny?!

    The funny thing is that you still don’t comprehend why the Tenth Circuit denied your appeal. The Tenth Circuit’s decision had nothing to do with your inability to cite a presidential eligibility case. It was denied because you failed to cite a single case which said that you were entitled to relief under § 1983.

    My case if it was granted Forma Pauperis, almost certainly is GRANTED CERT.

    Now that is funny.

    Do you know something I’m kind of proud of? My cases have NEVER been dismissed or denied on :

    1- The Doctrine of Standing
    2- The Political Doctrine Question

    That’s nothing to be proud of. Your cases weren’t dismissed on standing or the political doctrine question because they never got far enough for those issues to be adjudicated. If a lawsuit is dismissed sua sponte because of the failure to state a claim for relief, everything else is immediately moot.

    I will be remembered in all of History for it.

    You are being delusional again. You will not even be a footnote in history, except perhaps for your act of domestic terrorism. That is something to be ashamed of.

  47. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 10, 2016 at 5:46 am #

    Judy, let’s be clear about something. YOUR cases, those are jokes son, were dismissed by the lower courts, because they were incomprehensible piles of garbage, unreadable, unparsable, and totally unintelligible. The basic requirements(that’s rules dumbass) in filing is that you make a plain statement of your claim, a plain statement of what law applies and WHY, and the relief you want or deserve, and it has to be within their power to grant. I’ve read your hopeless piles of word salad, to my never ending regret, and they courts were exactly right, if not overly kind, in their summation. You’ve proven you can’t read, can’t follow even the simplest rules, and apparently can’t put together a coherent thought to save yourself. The courts have said that in relatively plain English twice now and a further third time by refusing to waste any time on it at all.

  48. avatar
    Keith January 10, 2016 at 12:57 pm #

    CRJ: You forgot Judy filed Forma Pauperis in over half a dozen cases which were granted like Chen. How could you miss that Bud?

    YOU forgot to file a complaint that could actually be remedied by the court.

    You do have to admit , as a Fact, Minor v. Happersett is indeed a SCOTUS Case.

    WAS a Scotus Case and it wasn’t YOUR case.

    Do you know something I’m kind of proud of? My cases have NEVER been dismissed or denied on :

    You are proud of being laughed out of court? OK, now we know. Now go away.

  49. avatar
    Kate January 11, 2016 at 1:31 am #

    CRJ:
    Some times I need you to forgive my spelling and gramatic, and syntax errors for simple Timing reasons rather then as evidence of a deteriorated mental disorder.

    Special emphasis on TIME and available Help.

    [No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the TIME of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;]

    Admired the article revealing Mr. Trumps penchant for sleeping in his own bed. It allowed him TIME to conduct business in the morning along with balancing his Campaign responsibilities.

    I really appreciated and understood that.
    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0UM17220160108

    This article about Trump proves what a hypocrite he is. He accused Hillary of not having enough stamina or strength to get through a campaign. His example was to complain that she would fly to events and then go home at night rather than spending the night on the road. This is ridiculous considering her earlier campaigning when she was traveling across Iowa in a minivan with some of her staff. Trump uses what he himself is guilty of doing to complain about others. The idiotic press never calls him on a damn thing he says!

  50. avatar
    SFJEFF January 11, 2016 at 12:25 pm #

    How could anyone manage to file any document today which has any serious spelling or grammar errors- spellcheck not working?

    Sure spellcheck might miss something- human editing still is important- but as someone who does have to file documents with the government- I always spell and grammar check through the computer before my final draft is done.

    Failing to do something as simple as that is an example of a bigger problem.

  51. avatar
    Arthur January 11, 2016 at 2:34 pm #

    SFJEFF: How could anyone manage to file any document today which has any serious spelling or grammar errors- spellcheck not working?

    And don’t forget the oddball capitalization of arbitrary words and the misuse of brackets for quotation marks.

  52. avatar
    Voice of Reason January 11, 2016 at 8:38 pm #

    No, Mr. Judy, I am not a clerk. I am a research attorney. I research the law, advise the justices, prepare draft opinions, etc.

    Your response to me indicates that you really have no clue about what legal merit means. Yes, it matters that the President be legally qualified for the office he or she holds. That does not mean that everything anyone spews out to challenge those qualifications has merit and requires a ruling from the United States Supreme Court.

    Arnold Schwartzenegger is not a natural born citizen because he was not a citizen on the day he was born. He immigrated and obtained his citizenship later. He can never be President. If he ran for President, I would join with all the birthers to oppose him.

    Barack Obama is a natural born citizen because he was a citizen on the day he was born. He is eligible to be President.

    The fact that birthers make up all sorts of other theories about what natural born citizen means does not make their arguments matters of legal significance that would get the interest of the United States Supreme Court. That is because those theories are garbage, and the court has real cases that demand its time.

    Good luck with your windmill-tilting. I have to get back to analyzing real legal issues in real cases filed by real attorneys, cases where there actually are two sides to the coin worth considering.

  53. avatar
    Rickey January 11, 2016 at 9:40 pm #

    Voice of Reason:

    Your response to me indicates that you really have no clue about what legal merit means.

    Judy doesn’t even understand what would have happened if he had been granted cert. He believes that if he won his appeal the Supreme Court would rule that a natural born citizen needs to have two citizen parents.

    SCOTUS, of course, would have done no such thing. The merits of Judy’s claim (such as they are) were never before SCOTUS. The only issue which SCOTUS could consider was whether the District Court improperly dismissed Judy’s lawsuit for failure to state a claim.

    Even if Judy had been granted cert, and after oral arguments was somehow able to get the dismissal reversed, his lawsuit would have been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

  54. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 12, 2016 at 12:25 am #

    The catch 22 here is that you have to be able to at least marginally spell correctly and know what the word was you meant to use, have more than a nodding acquaintance with actual English grammar, and be able to put a coherent thought down on paper. All activities Judy is totally incapable of doing, as he has proven over and over and over. The best spelling and grammar checkers in the world won’t help you if you can’t spell to begin with and are grammatically incompetent.

    Arthur: And don’t forget the oddball capitalization of arbitrary words and the misuse of brackets for quotation marks.

  55. avatar
    Notorial Dissent January 12, 2016 at 12:51 am #

    Not only that, but I’m not sure he even really filed an appeal, if I remember reading the dross correctly he was trying to get the USSC to retry the case and go from there, it was so bad I’ve tried to blot all memory of it from my mind. I don’t think he actually filed a real appeal. If I can find the USDC file and the appellate I would like to compare them with what he actually filed at USSC.

    Rickey: Judy doesn’t even understand what would have happened if he had been granted cert. He believes that if he won his appeal the Supreme Court would rule that a natural born citizen needs to have two citizen parents.

    SCOTUS, of course, would have done no such thing. The merits of Judy’s claim (such as they are) were never before SCOTUS. The only issue which SCOTUS could consider was whether the District Court improperly dismissed Judy’s lawsuit for failure to state a claim.

    Even if Judy had been granted cert, and after oral arguments was somehow able to get the dismissal reversed, his lawsuit would have been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

  56. avatar
    Rickey January 12, 2016 at 12:44 pm #

    Notorial Dissent:
    Not only that, but I’m not sure he even really filed an appeal, if I remember reading the dross correctly he was trying to get the USSC to retry the case and go from there, it was so bad I’ve tried to blot all memory of it from my mind. I don’t think he actually filed a real appeal. If I can find the USDC file and the appellate I would like to compare them with what he actually filed at USSC.

    Judy’s cert petition is here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/262436958/2015-U-S-Supreme-Court-Judy-v-Obama-Writ-Certiorari

    Compare that with the Tenth Circuit’s Order & Judgment:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/254651229/14-4136-ORDER-AND-JUDGEMENT-JUDY-V-OBAMA

    Nowhere in his petition does he challenge the basis for the dismissal, namely his failure to state a claim. All he does is re-argue his position on the definition of natural-born citizen, which is irrelevant in this context because the dismissal had nothing to do with that. He never addresses the Court’s finding that “Judy cites no basis in law for his claim that he is entitled to damages under § 1983.” He never addresses the Court’s finding that he was not entitled to a default judgment. He never addresses the Court’s finding that “the district court properly dismissed Judy’s complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(i)–(ii).”

    He does try to argue that he has standing, but that is irrelevant because his case wasn’t dismissed for lack of standing (although it likely would have been if he had gotten over the first hurdle).