Main Menu

Did the NY Times alter history? Obama Conspiracy Theories investigates!

Breitbart News published a publicist’s client list brochure from 1991 that includes Barack Obama, a description of a book project, and the curious statement that Barack Obama was born in Kenya—the exact words: “Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” Breitbart News did not claim that Barack Obama was born in Kenya based on that brochure, but rather that the brochure was an example of Obama trying to, in their words, “manipulate his public persona.” You can read my full story on the brochure from 2012 for more details.

The publicist’s assistant who edited the brochure, Miriam Goderich, describes the statement as “erroneous,” a “fact checking error,” and “never any information given to us by Obama.” Birthers, or course, latch onto anything they can find, and they stretch plausibility arguments to conclude Obama must have provided the information, approved the biographical statement, knew about its inclusion, and made no effort to get it corrected for over a decade.

There is one gaping hole in both what Breitbart News suggested and what the birthers believe, and that is found in an article in the New York Times the year before the brochure was made that says, “Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.” It was an article on Obama being the first black elected as president of the Harvard Law Review. It is wildly implausible that Obama would attempt to publicize a book project with a biography saying he was born in Kenya the very year after the New York Times, the country’s newspaper of record, published an article about Obama saying that he was born in Hawaii. Nobody would expect to get away with something like that. A publicist’s assistant fact checking error is plausible—Obama telling a contradictory story in such a public way is not.

That’s old news. What is new is a conspiracy theory promoted by the birther who posts as rtm9999 at Birther Report: the denial that the New York Times article from February 6, 1990, actually says Obama was born in Hawaii, and that the text version available online has been altered to add that sentence. Here’s the BR comment by rtm9999:

The NYT article is only found in an archive in an electronic format.
We already know that Obots edit text in newspaper and magazine articles . Especially the ones that stated Barry was foreign born (Tammy Duckworth interview. Hilariously it took several years before that edit happened.) or that stated that Barry was born in Kenya.

and

Let me teach you some words….
“The NYT article is only found in an electronic archive dated after Barry announced” and “Electronic media even one stored in an archive can be easily edited.”

rtm9999 attempts to support this argument by citing a wire service article about Obama’s election as president of the Law Review that did not mention him born in Hawaii and suggesting that the Times article must then have not had that information either.

I quoted the article that quoted the earliest wire service take on his background….
“from Hawaii” and NOT born in Hawaii”.

The insurmountable problem with that plausibility argument is that the New York Times story is not attributed to the wire service, but rather an interview conducted in Boston on February 5, the day Obama was elected to the Law Review. The attribution is: “By Fox Butterfield1 – Special to The New York Times.”

I would further call the statement by rtm9999 a lie when he says, “The NYT article is only found in an archive in an electronic format.” I suppose what rtm9999 meant was that the article is not found online archive except in text format. That’s not true either. The Huffington Post ran a screenshot image of the Times article on the article’s 25th anniversary in 2015. I didn’t know about the HuffPo article until I found it by accident today, and I can excuse rtm9999 for not knowing about it. What I cannot excuse is the irresponsible raising of doubt when it would have been easy to check another archive: the microfilm edition of the New York Times, widely available at public libraries across the country. I find it hard to believe that someone could graduate from school and not know about microfilm at the library.2

image

In contrast to birthers, I prefer to resolve issues rather than nurse doubts, so I dropped by the Spartanburg County Library to look up the Times article there. It’s on page A-20 in the February 6, 1990 edition. Below is my own cropped screen shot of the article, but you can click on the image to view the entire page in PDF format, exactly as it was created by the library microfilm scanner. It says, “Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.”

image

I made a suggestion in reply to rtm9999 that finding the NY Times on microfilm without the “Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii” text would be an important smoking gun to prove that newspapers were trying to change history to cover up the place of Obama’s birth. Either he didn’t take my suggestion, or chose not to disclose his findings.


1Fox Butterfield served as the NY Times bureau chief in Boston.

2The University of South Alabama library, where I attended college, had both the New York Times and the London Times on microfilm. The Greenville County Library has it, as does the Spartanburg County Library in South Carolina. From that anecdotal evidence, I concluded that the NYT on microfilm is widely available; however, not every library has it. For example, I checked the Laramie County (Cheyenne) Wyoming public library, and they don’t have it, but their librarian suggested that it might be obtained through interlibrary loan.

Update: I was contacted by the Laramie County Library to say that they found the NYT microfilm.

, , , , ,

109 Responses to Did the NY Times alter history? Obama Conspiracy Theories investigates!

  1. avatar
    Crustacean December 7, 2016 at 3:16 pm #

    I wish my name were Fox Butterfield. Some people have all the luck. I’ll never forgive my parents for naming me Bumptious Q. Bangwhistle…

    But seriously, this paragraph right here –

    “rtm9999 attempts to support this argument by citing a wire service article about Obama’s election as president of the Law Review that did not mention him born in Hawaii and suggesting that the Times article must then have not had that information either.”

    – is a perfect example of how the birther mind operates. Pretzel logic at its worst. We call them morons, but who are the real morons – them? Or is it us, for even bothering to give their pathetic arguments the undeserved dignity of a response?

  2. avatar
    Scientist December 7, 2016 at 3:41 pm #

    Crustacean: I wish my name were Fox Butterfield.

    Just think what that would do to your cholesterol, though.

    Crustacean: “rtm9999 attempts to support this argument by citing a wire service article about Obama’s election as president of the Law Review that did not mention him born in Hawaii and suggesting that the Times article must then have not had that information either.”

    And suppose the article didn’t say “born in Hawaii”? Let’s say someone was born in Hawaii, but moved with their family to California at the age of 1, where they remained. The article might legitimately say, “raised in California” or “from California” and that would meet every journalistic standard. I would think that when the person involved is 30, where they were raised is more significant than where they were born.

  3. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. December 7, 2016 at 3:56 pm #

    A birther scurrying away, when asked to produce concrete evidence? I’m shocked. SHOCKED!

  4. avatar
    Rickey December 7, 2016 at 5:47 pm #

    For those birthers who are thinking of claiming that the microfilms have been tampered with, The American Library Association says “There are an estimated 119,487 libraries of all kinds in the United States today.”

    http://www.ala.org/tools/libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet01

    I’m sure that thousands of them have the New York Times on microfilm.

  5. avatar
    Rickey December 7, 2016 at 5:53 pm #

    Crustacean:
    I wish my name were Fox Butterfield.

    Better than Fox Butterball, to be sure.

    Seriously, though, Fox (who is still alive) had an interesting career.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Butterfield

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 7, 2016 at 6:05 pm #

    See footnote 2, just added to my article.

    Rickey: I’m sure that thousands of them have the New York Times on microfilm.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 7, 2016 at 6:39 pm #

    rtm9999 has posted here as RTM999.

  8. avatar
    Rickey December 7, 2016 at 6:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    See footnote 2, just added to my article.

    I Googled “New York Times on Microfilm” and the first few pages include:

    The New York Public Library
    Truman State University
    UC-Santa Barbara
    Princeton University
    University of Missouri-St. Louis
    University of Pennsylvania
    Tufts University
    Emory University
    Yale University
    Syracuse University
    University of Delaware
    New York University
    Smith College
    Middlebury University
    St. Louis University School of Law

    etc., etc., etc.

  9. avatar
    Will Smirk 4 Food December 7, 2016 at 9:45 pm #

    Rickey: Better than Fox Butterball, to be sure.

    Seriously, though, Fox (who is still alive) had an interesting career.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Butterfield

    I think you missed the money shot on the Wikipedia article:

    Butterfield is the eponym for “The Butterfield Effect”, used to refer to a person who “makes a statement that is ludicrous on its face, yet it reveals what the speaker truly believes”, especially if expressing a supposed paradox when a causal relationship should be obvious.

    How many birthers does that describe?

  10. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) December 8, 2016 at 4:57 am #

    Rickey: For those birthers who are thinking of claiming that the microfilms have been tampered with, The American Library Association says “There are an estimated 119,487 libraries of all kinds in the United States today.”

    You’d be surprised to learn what our bitmites sekrit nanobots can do. 😉

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 8, 2016 at 7:53 pm #

    After telling me they did not have the TImes on microfilm, they followed up and said that they did–a catalog problem.

    I picked the Laramie County library because the RTM999 that posted here was talking about Wyoming drivers license requirements, and I believe said he as from Wyoming.

  12. avatar
    Cody Judy December 8, 2016 at 9:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracywildly implausible that Obama would tell the New York Times, the country’s newspaper of record, that he was born in Hawaii one year, and then try to put out a bio for a book project the next year saying he was born in Kenya.

    Isn’t that a little like saying Obama said you could keep your Doctor the same year many American’s found that they couldn’t?

    I think you just need to change your article to reflect the facts rather then your opinion on whether an article rehearsing Obama’s Education History backwards short cuts Obama’s history in Graduating from Hawaii’s Punahou High School and also attending an Indonesian Elementary School as Barry Soetoro for, “Obama was born in Hawaii. ”

    It is a little ironic that the author of the article does not quote Obama as stating he was from Hawaii, or born in Hawaii for that matter.

    The style of writing the author displays is very different of course than a comparison of say the incoming 2016-17 Harvard Law President which paints a broad stripe for the President’s place where “he grew up”.

    http://today.law.harvard.edu/harvard-law-review-elects-130th-president/

    ‘ Zuckerman grew up in Princeton, New Jersey, and graduated from Harvard College in 2010 with an A.B. in Social Studies. Before entering Harvard Law School, he served as a research assistant to Harvard Kennedy School professor and former presidential adviser David Gergen and as an associate at the Boston Consulting Group.’

    I think that stating Obama made the quote to the author of the NYT’s when it’s not a quote is deceptive at best to what is written. So it’s pretty easy to blow gaping holes in your theory which is speculative at best.

    As one whose had quite a few articles written about him, I can attest, without direct and quite literally Editing Powers, the ability for a writer to screw up an article is very easy. It is very doubtful Barack Obama had direct editing powers of the NYTs, but much more likely he did have editing powers with his publisher.

    It is also much more likely that in such a competitive race as Harvard Law Review President, that the “Background” was framed for the most receptivity rather than objectivity.

    Of course the 20 Million in Saudi Grant Money to get him in Harvard (http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/saudi-billionaire-did-help-obama-into-harvard/ ) was rewarded, and the question how Obama getting C’s at Occidental (for theories see The Blaze http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/02/the-interesting-thing-we-found-surrounding-obamas-grades-in-college/ ) made it into Columbia literally unknown to any class mates.
    http://joemiller.us/2013/06/obamas-columbia-30th-anniversary-and-no-classmate-remembers-seeing-him/

    To say questions are unresolved due to Obama’s own reluctance to release information including his long form birth certificate for 3 years, come on it was $10, and the Office of President as well as the qualifications in the Constitution, is itself enough to incriminate truth for conspiracy on circumstantial evidence which Obama seems all to willing to participate in.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 8, 2016 at 10:25 pm #

    Doc how about the microfilm of the latimes article well for good measure?
    http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-12/news/vw-74_1_harvard-law-review

  14. avatar
    gorefan December 9, 2016 at 12:06 am #

    Cody Judy: Obama’s history in Graduating from Hawaii’s Punahou High School and also attending an Indonesian Elementary School as Barry Soetoro for, “Obama was born in Hawaii. ”

    Wrong. President Obama attended Punahou School under the name Barry Obama. All of the yearbooks from 1971 through 1979 list him as Barry Obama. They are available online. He attended Occidental College, Columbia College and Harvard as Barack Obama.

    You are also wrong about his grades at Occidental and no one knowing him at Columbia.

  15. avatar
    Joey December 9, 2016 at 1:17 am #

    Its hilarious that Cody Judy cites World Net Daily and The Blaze as sources, two of the most discredited and biased web sites on the Internet.

  16. avatar
    Rickey December 9, 2016 at 4:06 am #

    Cody Judy:

    The style of writing the author displays is very different of course than a comparison of say the incoming 2016-17 Harvard Law President which paints a broad stripe for the President’s place where “he grew up”.

    You nailed it. Two different writers with two different styles of writing! What are the chances of that happening?

    made it into Columbia literally unknown to any class mates.

    Apparently you don’t know what “literally” means. Obama’s roommate certainly knew him.

    https://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/archive/jan_feb09/alumni_corner

    As did these people.

    One person who did remember Mr. Obama [at Columbia] was Michael L. Baron, who taught a senior seminar on international politics and American policy. Mr. Baron, now president of an electronics company in Florida, said he was Mr. Obama’s adviser on the senior thesis for that course. Mr. Baron, who later wrote Mr. Obama a recommendation for Harvard Law School, gave him an A in the course.

    Columbia was a hotbed for discussion of foreign policy, Mr. Baron said. The faculty included Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser, and Zalmay Khalilzad, now the American ambassador to the United Nations. Half of the eight students in the seminar were outstanding, and Mr. Obama was among them, Mr. Baron said.

    Michael J. Wolf, who took the seminar with him and went on to become president of MTV Networks, said: “He was very smart. He had a broad sense of international politics and international relations. It was a class with a lot of debate. He was a very, very active participant. I think he was truly distinctive from the other people in that class. He stood out.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

    And here is the 1983 Columbia graduation program. Guess who is listed as a graduate?

    https://www.scribd.com/document/102860164/Columbia-Program-1983

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 9, 2016 at 8:11 am #

    That’s an interesting point. I assumed that Obama told the writer where he was born. If Obama didn’t tell him, where did he get the information? If you were sitting in 1990 wondering where Barack Obama was born, what source would be available to you besides asking Obama? I can’t think of any off hand. It was in the Hawaii birth index, but you would have to know to look in Hawaii.

    Nevertheless, your point is well taken in that I do not know that Obama told the reporter, so I have rewritten that section of my article to say:

    It is wildly implausible that Obama would attempt to publicize a book project with a biography saying he was born in Kenya the very year after the New York Times, the country’s newspaper of record, published an article about Obama saying that he was born in Hawaii. Nobody would expect to get away with something like that. A publicist’s assistant fact checking error is plausible—Obama telling a contradictory story in such a public way is not.

    Thank you for helping me improve the article. Since I don’t have an editor looking over my shoulder, I have to rely on commenters for criticism.

    Cody Judy: I think that stating Obama made the quote to the author of the NYT’s when it’s not a quote is deceptive at best to what is written. So it’s pretty easy to blow gaping holes in your theory which is speculative at best.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 9, 2016 at 8:22 am #

    Thanks for that. I doubt they have the LA times locally. Interesting from that article, which says Obama was born in Hawaii, is this quote:

    “His own upbringing is a blending of diverse cultures. Born in Hawaii, where his parents met in college, Obama was named Barack (blessed in Arabic) after his father.”

    Gee, I thought Barack meant “he who fell like lightning from on high like Satan.” That’s what Pastor Gallups told me:

    http://www.ethicsdaily.com/pastors-video-insinuates-obama-is-the-antichrist-cms-14949

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Doc how about the microfilm of the latimes article well for good measure?

  19. avatar
    Cody Judy December 9, 2016 at 10:44 am #

    Rickey: Apparently you don’t know what “literally” means. Obama’s roommate certainly knew him.

    My reference included his foreign roommate from Pakistan and one radical left leaning professor who have provided testimony over the 700 others, 150 in the Political Science specific class.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Thank you for helping me improve the article. Since I don’t have an editor looking over my shoulder, I have to rely on commenters for criticism.

    That was very nice of you Doc. I appreciate that. As far as the compromise of the MSM I’m sorry to say the left-leaning agenda driven media has taken a blow and I still think, in my opinion of course, that the ties with the NYTs and many other MSM outlets are compromised and agenda driven journalism.

    Perhaps this is due also impart to my horrific experience with them in the 90’s also. New York Times Is Very Concerned About Billionaire Media Investors—But Not Their Billionaire Investor

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/heatst.com/politics/new-york-times-billionaire-carlos-slim/amp/?client=ms-android-verizon

    You Didn’t know him

    https://youtu.be/ToXOildrDSE

    I’m can relate my own experience in the exact Arena Obama played in, the Presidential Race as a witness.

    I can only point to 1 article outside The Post & Email, which was a Paid Subscriber Internet News Outlet at the timend only recently going free to the Public, that posted any News of a Historical Case involving two U.S. Presidential Candidates with the Qualifications of [ natural born Citizen] as the rudder going not once but TWICE to the U.S. Supreme Court , the Plaintiff involved in bi-Partisan suits with both Republicans and Democrats in Judy v. McCain https://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2008cv01162/61642

    AND
    Judy v. Obama SCOTUS 12-5276 : 14-9396
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=judy+v.+obama&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZqeD0sOfQAhVR8GMKHczPB-QQgQMIGDAA

    The precedent never existing in U.S. History no doubt will be argued for better or worse in future cases!

    Landmark cases like Same-Sex Marriage was covered extensively by the NYTs and very favorably in the same period and affect far fewer people than the Office of President.

    You look at even Birther Cases in Wikipedia, and you’ll strangely notice the only Bi-Partisan Plaintiff as a Presidential Candidate missing, actually fought against in the greatest suppression of information affecting the Nation.

    This is the one and only article that this issue and stand ever took place in National Public News
    https://www.bustle.com/articles/130896-has-a-candidate-sued-the-dnc-before-bernie-sanders-isnt-the-first-technically

    That includes Newspapers, Radio, Television. The Internet and as Hillary Rodham Clinton announced as the 2016 Democratic Nominee ALT-Media are the only sources to find the Story which mainly surrounds my own personal Record on Web Site http://www.codyjudy.us, Blog http://www.codyjudy.blogsoot.com, and YouTube channel CODY ROBERT JUDY. as well 15 Court Cases most of which are in The Judicial Branch of our Government.

    Recognizing eight attempts to change it in the Legislative Branch which all failed since 2003 and actual Hearings in 2000 by The House Judiciary Committee really places a big exclamation marked question.

    Why unless the MSM is compromised and bias in their own agenda are they so determined in this Corruption of Journalistic Integrity. It’s not an obscure case in a unrelated affect on every American.

    Of course your site and integrity to provide a smidgen of information on covering the Case is to be Congratulated Doc. You actually covered this subject and Precedent Case in American History BETTER for the American Public than the NYTs did.

    You also changed your Article with a suggestion. I respect that and appreciate your coverage. As Trump noticed often, sometimes even bad or negative coverage paves the way to the White House.

    What a Historical Witness to the MSM that even in the context of this groups label for President Elect Donald J. Trump as a last minute former Birther, he won the Election of 2016 and the other 16 who were anti-Birthers from the get-go all lost with hundreds of millions of dollars essentially flushed.

    As I write your coverage was/is at least better than the NYTs in a complimentary fashion, I notice also a compliment to PEOTUS Trump on covering this issue and the MSM opposed but his still winning as a very big victory and publuc rebuke to the MSM on this.

    Just think, we might have had a Democratic Party President in the Office of President if the MSM had covered and been on my side, instead of against Trump and against the People. That would have meant a Democratic Party President nominating Justices to SCOTUS, which truly will affect generations.

    The personal blocking the MSM has done for Barack Obama has been the Demolition of what Justice Ginsburg related as “It all up for grabs”.

    Any slight against me Judicially from the Judiciary as well their counterparts in the MSM only served to sustain what you here and they have fought against.

    I am your humble servant reporting to you, I gave you a choice. You cannot deny that. I report to my Maker our Creator, I did what you asked of me. Thank you for giving them at least a Choice.

  20. avatar
    Rickey December 9, 2016 at 12:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    That’s an interesting point. I assumed that Obama told the writer where he was born. If Obama didn’t tell him, where did he get the information? If you were sitting in 1990 wondering where Barack Obama was born, what source would be available to you besides asking Obama? I can’t think of any off hand. It was in the Hawaii birth index, but you would have to know to look in Hawaii.

    The writer also doesn’t quote Obama as saying that his father was deceased and had been a finance minister in Kenya or that his mother was in Indonesia, or even that he was 28 years old at the time of the interview. Nevertheless, I believe that it’s a safe assumption that the writer got all of that information from Obama because, as you say, where else would he have gotten it?

    It’s interesting that Judy, who insists that Obama isn’t eligible regardless of where he was born, is still obsessed with the birth certificate.

  21. avatar
    bob December 9, 2016 at 12:28 pm #

    Cody Judy: To say questions are unresolved due to Obama’s own reluctance to release information including his long form birth certificate for 3 years, come on it was $10, and the Office of President as well as the qualifications in the Constitution, is itself enough to incriminate truth for conspiracy on circumstantial evidence which Obama seems all to willing to participate in.

    The height of hypocrisy since ex-con Judy refuses to release his IFP application.

  22. avatar
    Joey December 9, 2016 at 12:49 pm #

    bob: The height of hypocrisy since ex-con Judy refuses to release his IFP application.

    Its obvious that Mr. Judy does not know that the birth certificate posted by Barack Obama to the Internet on June 7, 2008 is the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii.
    It is the same style of computer print out abstracted form that both Mitt Romney and Donald Trump released. John McCain refused to publicly release any birth certificate. McCain did allow one Washington Post reporter to see his Panama Canal Zone birth certificate.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 9, 2016 at 1:38 pm #

    Rickey: It’s interesting that Judy, who insists that Obama isn’t eligible regardless of where he was born, is still obsessed with the birth certificate.

    I think that’s the funny thing with some birthers if they truly believe in the two citizen parent theory why even focus on the BC?

  24. avatar
    Rickey December 9, 2016 at 1:52 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I think that’s the funny thing with some birthers if they truly believe in the two citizen parent theory why even focus on the BC?

    And if there was any basis to the two citizen parent theory, why didn’t it come up during the 2008 campaign? Why didn’t Corsi mention it in “The Obama Nation?” It’s not as if the citizenship of Obama’s father was a secret.

  25. avatar
    Keith December 9, 2016 at 11:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I can’t think of any off hand.

    “Who’s Who”?

    I remember being chased by the publisher’s marketing people for years to pay to get my name in there.

    Many people think you had to ‘be someone’ to get into “Who’s Who” – completely wrong. You just had to pay the fee – sorta like getting a star on Hollywood Boulevard.

  26. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund December 10, 2016 at 1:13 am #

    bob: The height of hypocrisy since ex-con Judy refuses to release his IFP application.

    Heck, he refuses even to release the letter from the clerk explaining why his IFP application was deficient. Unlike the application, the letter from the clerk shouldn’t have any personal info, so the only reason to hold back is because it reveals why his application was deficient.

  27. avatar
    Reality Check December 10, 2016 at 8:07 am #

    There isn’t.

    Rickey: And if there was any basis to the two citizen parent theory,

  28. avatar
    Rickey December 10, 2016 at 2:25 pm #

    Reality Check:
    There isn’t.

    I remember when birthers were insisting that they were taught the “two-citizen parent requirement” in school, but when challenged to identify a single textbook which espouses it they came up empty.

  29. avatar
    J.D. Sue December 10, 2016 at 3:50 pm #

    Just thinking: All this time, I thought Taitz was an incompetent KGB agent. Now, it seems I’ve underestimated her.

  30. avatar
    donna December 11, 2016 at 10:00 am #

    Cody Judy: Obama’s history in Graduating from Hawaii’s Punahou High School and also attending an Indonesian Elementary School as Barry Soetoro for, “Obama was born in Hawaii. ”

    Obama Classmate Dishes to Fox News

    O’Reilly Factor correspondent Jesse Watters spoke to the President’s former classmate, Bernice Bowers, who attended the Punahou School in Honolulu with Barack Obama.

    WATTERS: Now, last question. There was that controversy about his birth certificate. When you heard that, how did that make you feel when everybody was talking about that?

    BOWERS: I thought it was the most ridiculous debate I had ever seen. Because all of us were born in Hawaii at that time, we have the same birth certificates… If you happen to have kept the original one, which is a very thin extremely blackened out piece of paper with, you know, it’s very fragile, and what was even funnier was that our classmates, we have twins in our class, they were born right before then, literally their numbers in that hospital were right before his. Their mother knew the doctor who delivered him. So, we all felt that that was an extremely useless debate and wish that American hadn’t gone there.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2013/01/04/obama-classmate-dishes-fox-news

  31. avatar
    Joey December 11, 2016 at 12:34 pm #

    Hat tip to Donna for providing an additional testimonial that I hadn’t seen before.

  32. avatar
    Joey December 11, 2016 at 2:13 pm #

    Swede provides ‘proof’ in Obama birth debate
    29 April 2011
    THE LOCAL
    “Sweden’s News In English”
    by Rebecca Martin

    A Swedish woman, Monica Danielsson, 78, may have provided the last piece in a the puzzle on where US president Barack Obama was born, when CNN recently went to Hawaii finally lay the matter to rest.
    “Obama was lying there next to my Stig in the bassinet and I remember him because he was the only black child there and I thought he was very cute,” she said to Swedish daily Expressen.

    CNN recently sent reporter Gary Tuchman from the show ‘Andersson Cooper 360′ to Hawaii to find evidence that president Obama was born there.

    While there, he quickly discovered an announcement in the birth columns of the local paper of a Stig Waidelich who was born in the same hospital the day after Obama.

    “They then tried to track me down to compare my son’s birth certificate to the one provided by Obama,” Danielsson said.

    According to CNN the whole matter is complicated because the governor of Hawaii is not legally able to release the original certificate.

    But now ‘the CNN investigation showed that the ‘certification of live birth’ released by President Obama in 2008 is the same certificate that is issued to every Hawaiian’, according to a statement from CNN.

    Through Monica Danielsson, CNN obtained a certificate for her son Stig, to compare to president Obama’s.

    According to CNN, the document given to Stig from the Department of Health is the same exact document that President Obama has released.

    “Stig, who no longer has his original birth certificate, can use this document for any court proceedings and any legal purposes”, CNN said in a statement.

    Monica, who was borh in Traneberg in Stockholm, moved to Hawaii 50 years ago.

    Her memories of an African-American baby at the maternity ward further corroborate the story.

    “I have no absolute proof of course, but I saw Obama and I have always thought it was Obama,” she told Expressen.

    When President Obama became a candidate in 2008, Monika noticed his birth date and hospital in an article and remembered that day in the nursery. Since then more memories of Obama growing up has come back to Danielsson.

    “The memories come rushing back to me. Obama was very into sport and my son was good at tennis, although Obama was more into basketball,” she said.

    http://www.thelocal.se/20110429/33472

  33. avatar
    Joey December 11, 2016 at 7:10 pm #

    Cody Judy: My reference included his foreign roommate from Pakistan and one radical left leaning professor who have provided testimony over the 700 others, 150 in the Political Science specific class.

    Don’t forget about the two young ladies that Barack Obama dated while he was at Columbia, Alexandra Mc Near and Genevieve Cook. Some of their correspondance with Obama has been published.
    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2012/06/young-barack-obama-in-love-david-maraniss

  34. avatar
    Rickey December 11, 2016 at 7:53 pm #

    Cody Judy: My reference included his foreign roommate from Pakistan and one radical left leaning professor who have provided testimony over the 700 others, 150 in the Political Science specific class.

    “Nobody” remembers him, yet he managed to write an article for the Columbia student body weekly news magazine in 1983.

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/obama-sundial.pdf

  35. avatar
    Joey December 11, 2016 at 8:21 pm #

    Rickey: “Nobody” remembers him, yet he managed to write an article for the Columbia student body weekly news magazine in 1983.
    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/obama-sundial.pdf

    It is precisely because of the plethora of birther memes like those put forth here by Cody Judy, Trader Jack and their ilk, that are so easily disproven that the whole birther movement went down in flames.
    Birther ridiculousness actually ended up helping Barack Obama to get elected and reelected because many voters did not want to associate themselves with foolshness like whether or not a person graduated from a college is dependent on how many people say they knew that person some twenty-five years later.
    I really wsh that there had been some birthers that could be taken seriously. Those debates could have been intetesting.

  36. avatar
    Rickey December 11, 2016 at 8:48 pm #

    Joey:
    Birther ridiculousness actually ended up helping Barack Obama to get elected and reelected because many voters did not want to associate themselves with foolishness like whether or not a person graduated from a college is dependent on how many people say they knew that person some twenty-five years later.

    I wonder how many convicts remember being in prison with CRJ.

  37. avatar
    donna December 12, 2016 at 11:14 am #

    Joey: Hat tip to Donna for providing an additional testimonial that I hadn’t seen before.

    For “Birthers,” Honolulu Mom an Inconvenient Truth

    “I entered the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital on early Friday afternoon, August 4, 1961. I was registered and my expected twins were given Hawaii State birth certificate numbers 10637 and 10638. My labor was slow with poor contractions from a distended uterus.

    “Apparently, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama came in shortly after I arrived, because her baby was registered as number 10641. Her labor was strong, and she delivered Barack Hussein Obama early that evening. The next morning my contractions strengthened. The twins finally emerged at 2:05 and 2:12 p.m. Saturday, August 5th. By the way, I don’t want to do that again!”

    Obama and the Nordyke girls also wound up in the same classes at Noelani Elementary School and later at Punahou School from the seventh grade to graduation in 1979.

    Nordyke explained that part of the reason she remembers Obama’s birth is because of the unusual name of his mother, Stanley Ann, and the newborn’s name, Barack Hussein. She also noticed in news reports when the controversy first erupted that Obama’s birth certificate number was close to those assigned her twin girls, Susan “Nini” and Gretchen “Nunu.”

    http://www.womensmediacenter.com/feature/entry/for-birthers-honolulu-mom-an-inconvenient-truth

  38. avatar
    Cody Judy December 12, 2016 at 11:59 am #

    Rickey: It’s interesting that Judy, who insists that Obama isn’t eligible regardless of where he was born, is still obsessed with the birth certificate.

    Joey: I really wsh that there had been some birthers that could be taken seriously. Those debates could have been intetesting.

    Anti-Birther hypocrisy rest in their tough talk socially, but their flea circus act in the Judicial Branch. .while I have been involved in some 15 Court Cases with actual willingness to make the arguments official, we can’t help notice the unwillingness for anti-Birthers to actually file an Amicus Curiae when even formally invited.

    The banter here is reminiscent of street brawlers jumping up and down watching TV saying if they were in the ring they could be the heavy weight champion of the world. 😂

    Of course Rickey is right. , and every Case I was officially involved in the Judicial Branch put fourth the argument first that it did not matter where Obama was born, Congress was given only naturalization powers of Adoption, not magical natural born Citizen powers as was demonstrated by the U.S. Senate non-binding Resolution 511 acting as the pixie dust for Sen. McCain.

    Co-sponsors HRC and BHO only illustrate the good ole cronyism at play in the tryst. At least The Congress [Naturalization] Acts of 1795 realized that Naturalization Powers and Magic MOJO for natural born Citizen was delusional and could not co-exist.

    I’d love to deliberate that on C-SPAN in a SCOTUS Hearing … say when. I’ll make you look like the most stupid idiots in the discrimination of Parents while both mother and father have Voting Rights in the Nation’s History.

    While you don’t get it, the Nation did in the Election of 2016 and your ‘single person’ consideration in BHO is placing every Civil Rights Achievement over the last 100 years on the chopping block.

    Justice Ginsburg said well
    ” it’s all up for grabs”

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ginsburg-says-everything-will-be-up-for-grabs-if-trump-wins/article/2595992

    Who let it get that way? She and all the Liberals and Democrats who refused to take a Stand on defending the Office of President to Foreign Influence through Parents or Place which is Fundamental.

    You always here Coaches preach on Fundamentals players get drilled over and over and over because Coaches know the game is usually lost by the teams making fundamentally stupid mistakes.

    Obama’s Birth place is a side-show. It’s like the long pass that’s up for grabs. Yes, it’s nice to come down with a pass like that in a game, but you really should not be depending on that kind of play to win the game.

    The dis-respect shown to Foreign Fathers and Mothers on this site is an Epidemic of Negligence. Rather than count it as Equal in Lawful Inheritance, those of you who do not dis-respect Foreign Parental Inheritance simply resort to what basically amounts to a Robbery or Theft, a Kidnapping in Silence of a child’s Parent who is Foreign.

    ” We just won’t count that Parent!” (?) Even God said honor your father and mother. It’s Fundamental.

    I would be happy to make that argument in front of the entire Nation demonstrating it with a child watching in a Court room play, his father or mother’s inheritance ripped away from her or him. Maybe wiped out as the Nation watches in horror the child’s torn and fractured emotions played out.

    And what is your Bribe to the child by the loss of one or the other Parents inheritance? The Presidency for a 4 or 2 time 4 year term.

    Essau remains in history having sold his birthright for a bowl of mush to Jacob his younger brother. Yet, those selling the child’s foreign parent as not equal in consideration for the Office if President cannot see they are selling their Americanship the same way?

    I have no doubt of your reward. PEOTUS Donald J. Trump is only the beginning of your insatiable appetite for a hit of Crack Cocaine. Boy! It’s great they say for a short time, but Hell comes after.

  39. avatar
    Cody Judy December 12, 2016 at 12:31 pm #

    From last Post …[Equal in Lawful Inheritance, those of you who [do] dis-respect Foreign Parental Inheritance simply resort to what basically amounts to a Robbery or Theft, a Kidnapping in Silence of a child’s Parent who is Foreign.]

    Ran out of time for correction Sorry.

  40. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 1:03 pm #

    Cody Judy:
    Anti-Birther hypocrisy rest in their tough talk socially, but their flea circus act in the Judicial Branch. .while I have been involved in some 15 Court Cases with actual willingness to make the arguments official, we can’t help notice the unwillingness for anti-Birthers to actually file an Amicus Curiae when even formally invited.

    Mr. Judy is obviously unaware of the amicus curiae filed by the Alabama Democratic Party in the Obama eligibility challenge McInnish v Chapman. It included a copy of the Obama birth certficate and a copy of a Letter of Verification for the birth certficate from the Hawaii Registrar.
    The nine Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court are all elected Republicans. Barack Obama remained eligible in Alabama.
    https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/al-mcinnish-v-chapman-amicus-brief-2/

    Since a majority of Obama eligibility challenges were dismissed on pre-trial motions, there was no opportunity or need to submit amicus briefs.

    Mr. Judy favors quantity (15 filings) over quality. “One amicus brief to ‘trump’ (pardon the pun) them all!”
    Did Mr. Judy’s arguments prevail in any of his court cases? No, he lost every time.

  41. avatar
    Cody Judy December 12, 2016 at 1:26 pm #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Heck, he refuses even to release the letter from the clerk explaining why his IFP application was deficient. Unlike the application, the letter from the clerk shouldn’t have any personal info, so the only reason to hold back is because it reveals why his application was deficient.

    bob: The height of hypocrisy since ex-con Judy refuses to release his IFP application.

    The irony of scrutiny in prior comments of THE DENIAL of my IFP Application by SCOTUS seen, understood, and witnessed by the same, as it was approved the same year by the Lower Federal District Court Judge and the Panel of Judges in two Review’s at the Tenth Circuit and its good for a whole year , is not lost.

    These Delusions of unrest defy sincerely grounded facts and serve as more of a witness to the passing reader that Birthers Arguments have very basic even mathmatical Merit.

    Rickey: I wonder how many convicts remember being in prison with CRJ.

    Which actually begs the question how many remember Obama in the nursery at Kapiolani? They were many more who did not remember him at Columbia University.

    You know the thing that bothered me the most about the long form fabrication is that whatever the Hawaii Health Director witnesses is seen as Represented by the whole State of Hawaii , and she’s dead.

    Also-

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-birth-hawaii-gov-proof-presidents-birth-certificate/story?id=12721552

    The Hawaii newly elected Democrat governor, and a college friend of Obama’s parents, said;

    “Our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives written down,” Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie told Honolulu’s Star-Advertiser.

    Written down? Why did he say ” Written Down” ? Well, that’s one witness that part of it was in writing and that something other than what Obama produced was formally available before 2012.

    I think what was written down was that Obama’s Grandparents reported the Birth to Hawaii Health Department Officials, who then automatically sent off the Declaration to the Newspapers which was normal operating procedures.

    But what Obama produced at the White House Press Core Conference was a fabrication with the Original handwritten declaration reported by Grandparents wiped off the original Record Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy actually saw.

    The Witness to Arizona Secretary of State was of a record being there, not of authenticity but is verification of a Record.

    The Verification of Birth Bennett received was signed by Hawaii’s State Registrar Alvin Onaka on May 22, 2012. The document verified day, time and place of the president’s birth. It also says that the widely-circulated copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth matches the original records in state files.

    Arizona lawmakers tried to pass “birther” bills in 2011 and 2012. Bennett says he got the idea to request the verification from one of the hundreds of Arizonans demanding more proof to justify Obama was a natural born citizen, and thus met the Constitution’s requirement for the presidency.

    “If people’s minds were made up about that, it wasn’t going to change,” Bennett said. “I did the thing that I thought sounded reasonable, which is [to] contact the other government officials in Hawaii who kept those records and asked them government official to government official, ‘Do you have a birth certificate for Barack Obama?’”

    Bennett said he had to fill out a standard form and mail in 5 dollars to get the verification. He says, to his knowledge, no other state requested the

    documentation.http://www.abc15.com/news/state/former-arizona-secretary-of-state-ken-bennett-received-proof-of-obamas-hawaiian-birth-in-2012

    State Registrar Alvin Onaka was never cross examined about the Grandparent’s Reporting the Birth rather than the Hospital, or the Practises of Hawaii to sign Reported Births in places other than Hospitals and even the State as long as Citizens of Hawaii Reported the Birth.

    Of course motive surrounds social security benefits, a divorced mother’s Grant’s, Government aide, far more in immediate help than saying it was Reported for Obama to be eligible for President, which seems whimsical and farcical, but is the narrative hugged by the MSM.

  42. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 1:30 pm #

    Cody Judy:
    From last Post …[Equal in Lawful Inheritance, those of you who [do] dis-respect Foreign Parental Inheritance simply resort to what basically amounts to a Robbery or Theft, a Kidnapping in Silence of a child’s Parent who is Foreign.]

    Ran out of time for correction Sorry.

    Presidents with what Mr. Judy calls “foreign parental influence.”
    Thomas Jefferson: mother from England
    Andrew Jackson: father & mother from Ireland
    James Buchanan: father from Ireland
    Chester Arthur: father from Ireland
    Woodrow Wilson: mother from England
    Herbert Hoover: mother from Canada
    Barack Obama: father from Kenya
    Donald Trump: mother from Scotland

    Congressman James Madison:
    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
    House of Representatives, May 22,1789
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html

    Barack Obama only met his father a couple of times as a child, he was raised by a mother and grandparents from Kansas. We have had 8 years to assess his performance. He was reelectd and his Gallup job approval rating today is 54% approve and 43% disapprove.

  43. avatar
    Cody Judy December 12, 2016 at 1:41 pm #

    Joey: Presidents with what Mr. Judy calls “foreign parental influence.”
    Thomas Jefferson: mother from England
    Andrew Jackson: father & mother from Ireland
    James Buchanan: father from Ireland
    Chester Arthur: father from Ireland
    Woodrow Wilson: mother from England
    Herbert Hoover: mother from Canada
    Barack Obama: father from Kenya
    Donald Trump: mother from Scotland

    Of course held to the Standard of [Citizen Parents or Parent] at the Time of Birth for post-American Revolutionary Citizens.

    We see the Witness of [ Citizen] at the Time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Art. II. Section 1, C-5.

    So it changed for those born after , and Congress has tried 8 times since 2003 and held Hearings in 2000, but after the [ Citizens] at the Time of the Adoption of the Constitution the Legal Qualification was [ natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.

    As Minor v. Happersett witnesses there was never a Doubt about.

    So, is there a line drawn for Age also? Yes. , and it’s differant for Representatives and Senators as also President.

  44. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 2:05 pm #

    Cody Judy: Of course held to the Standard of [Citizen Parents or Parent] at the Time of Birth for post-American Revolutionary Citizens.

    We see the Witness of [ Citizen] at the Time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Art. II. Section 1, C-5.

    So it changed for those born after , and Congress has tried 8 times since 2003 and held Hearings in 2000, but after the [ Citizens] at the Time of the Adoption of the Constitution the Legal Qualification was [ natural born Citizen] ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents.

    As Minor v. Happersett witnesses there was never a Doubt about.

    So, is there a line drawn for Age also? Yes. , and it’s differant for Representatives and Senators as also President.

    I like leaving it up to the individual voter to decide if Donald Trump’s mother being from Scotland or Barack Obama’s father being from Kenya is enough of a factor to disqualify that candidate from receiving their vote.
    I also agree with James Madison that where a person was born is more important than who their parents are.
    There is a good reason why statute law defines who is a “Citizen of the United States AT BIRTH.” The first criterion is “born IN the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
    There were about 20 court rulings that explicitedly held that Barack Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen.” No court ever ruled that he did not qualify.
    Here is an excerpt from one of those rulings:
    Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin–“No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin

  45. avatar
    Cody Judy December 12, 2016 at 2:48 pm #

    Joey: I like leaving it up to the individual voter to decide if Donald Trump’s mother being from Scotland or Barack Obama’s father being from Kenya is enough of a factor to disqualify that candidate from receiving their vote.

    If avoiding , circumventing, abscondsion of the Law is all that’s needed to create Judicial Precedent, our whole Nation is compromised with the Excuse : Hillary-Email-Act

    She got away with a Private Server w National Security Breaches why can’t I?

    Same goes for Obama and or Chester Arthur.. they cannot create Precedent by Excuse. It requires 2/3rds of Congress for Amendment.

    Trump’s mother was a U.S. Citizen at the Time of his Birth.

  46. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 2:59 pm #

    Cody Judy: If avoiding , circumventing, abscondsion of the Law is all that’s needed to create Judicial Precedent, our whole Nation is compromised with the Excuse : Hillary-Email-Act

    She got away with a Private Server w National Security Breaches why can’t I?

    Same goes for Obama and or Chester Arthur.. they cannot create Precedent by Excuse. It requires 2/3rds of Congress for Amendment.

    That’s your personal opinion but it has no basis in law. The Constitution assigns to the judicial branch the authority to resolve all cases and controversies that arise under the Constitution. Over eight years of birthers’ filings with the courts, not a single judge, anywhere in America, at any level of the judiciary has agreed with your opinion.
    Congress was obviously satisfied as well. They have never held a single hearing on natural born citizenship and Article II, Section 1 eligibility and they unanimously certified Barack Obama’s electors, twice, without objection.

  47. avatar
    bob December 12, 2016 at 3:17 pm #

    Cody Judy:
    Anti-Birther hypocrisy rest in their tough talk socially, but their flea circus act in the Judicial Branch. .while I have been involved in some 15 Court Cases with actual willingness to make the arguments official, we can’t help notice the unwillingness for anti-Birthers to actually file an Amicus Curiae when even formally invited.

    The courts don’t need amicus briefs to help explain why frivolous lawsuits were dismissed as frivolous; duh.

    I’d love to deliberate that on C-SPAN in a SCOTUS Hearing … say when. I’ll make you look like the most stupid idiots in the discrimination of Parents while both mother and father have Voting Rights in the Nation’s History.

    Ex-con Judy continues to fantasize that anyone would care what he has to say.

    The dis-respect shown to Foreign Fathers and Mothers on this site is an Epidemic of Negligence. Rather than count it as Equal in Lawful Inheritance, those of you who do not dis-respect Foreign Parental Inheritance simply resort to what basically amounts to a Robbery or Theft, a Kidnapping in Silence of a child’s Parent who is Foreign.

    Ex-con Judy continues to imagine legal requirements that the courts have repeatedly rejected.

    Cody Judy:
    The irony of scrutiny in prior comments of THE DENIAL of my IFP Application by SCOTUS seen, understood, and witnessed by the same,as it was approved the same year by the Lower Federal District Court Judge and the Panel of Judges in two Review’s at the Tenth Circuit and its good for a whole year , is not lost.

    Ex-con Judy continues to fail to understand that the lower courts’ rulings on the IFP applications before them are not binding on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the IFP before it. There is no “good for a whole year” rule that ex-con Judy imagines.

    Which actually begs the question how many remember Obama in the nursery at Kapiolani? They were many more who did not remember him at Columbia University.

    Ex-con Judy continues to not understand that things like birth certificates and diplomas were created so society wouldn’t have to rely on fading memories.

    You know the thing that bothered me the most about the long form fabrication is that whatever the Hawaii Health Director witnesses is seen as Represented by the whole State of Hawaii , and she’s dead.

    Ghoul that he is, ex-con Judy continues to besmirch the dead — without any evidence whatsoever.

    I think what was written down was that Obama’s Grandparents reported the Birth to Hawaii Health Department Officials, who then automatically sent off the Declaration to the Newspapers which was normal operating procedures.

    What ex-con Judy “thinks” about President Obama’s grandparents is evidence only that ex-con Judy has no problem spreading lies about the dead.

    The Witness to Arizona Secretary of State was of a record being there, not of authenticity but is verification of a Record.

    Ex-con Judy continues to be confused as to how birth certificates work, or why they were created in the first place.

    Cody Judy: Of course held to the Standard of [Citizen Parents or Parent] at the Time of Birth for post-American Revolutionary Citizens.

    Scholar that he is (not), ex-con Judy “overlooked” that Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump were all born after the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

    She got away with a Private Server w National Security Breaches why can’t I?

    Ex-con Judy can’t seem to understand that no law-enforcement official thinks Clinton committed a crime.

    Trump’s mother was a U.S. Citizen at the Time of his Birth.

    Says who? Why are they believable but the State of Hawaii is not?

  48. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 3:26 pm #

    Cody Judy says: “I think what was written down was that Obama’s Grandparents reported the Birth to Hawaii Health Department Officials, who then automatically sent off the Declaration to the Newspapers which was normal operating procedures.”

    How did the grandparents get Dr. David A Sinclair, an obstetrician-gynecologist on the staff at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospial to sign the birth certificate as Attending Physician?
    The Obama birth was officially registered with the state Health Bureau on August 8th and first listed in the Health Bureau Statistics column in a local Honolulu newspaper on August 13th.

  49. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 4:12 pm #

    Cody Judy says: “You know the thing that bothered me the most about the long form fabrication is that whatever the Hawaii Health Director witnesses is seen as Represented by the whole State of Hawaii , and she’s dead.”

    However Loretta Fuddy’s predecessor who was the first Hawaii Health Director to actually inspect the original, vault edition Obama birth certificate is still very much alive.
    Televised interview with Dr. Fukino on Obama birth certificate authenticity.
    http://youtu.be/e9D4n6_Uifk

    And the state Registrar of Vital Statistics who has the original long form Obama Certificate of Live Birth in his office safe and who has certified the official copies of the long form and issued three Letters of Verification for copies of the original long form is also alive and well.

    Rest assured, Mr. Judy that if there was a legitimate reason or need, both the 2002-2010 Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Fukino and the Registrar, Dr. Onaka can be supoenaed, deposed or called to testify at any time. A judge can also order Dr. Onaka to bring the original birth certificate to court for inspection.

  50. avatar
    Cody Judy December 12, 2016 at 6:37 pm #

    Joey: Here is an excerpt from one of those rulings:
    Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin–“No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin

    It’s interesting you’d choose a Judge to quote from the Executive Branch😂 rather then the Judicial Branch. Not that they ( Judicial Branch Judges) care their authority has been gilded like the Legislative Branches.

    You might as well just rubber stamped Obama’s own argument and called it Journalism. Why have a Check and Balanced System of three equal Branches?

    Joey: Mr. Judy favors quantity (15 filings) over quality. “One amicus brief to ‘trump’ (pardon the pun) them all!”
    Did Mr. Judy’s arguments prevail in any of his court cases? No, he lost every time.

    The SCOTUS did not hear it once and they have had two opportunities. That Quality is surely lacking without argument. Most cases were indeed dismissed for lack of standing. Mine lower court cases were not.

    The fact that SCOTUS denied Judy v. Obama 12-5276 & 14-9396, the only Case where the chance of two Presidential Candidates could have both stated arguments about the Qualification Equality subject to Candidates in the U.S. Constitution of [ natural born Citizen] , never heard or ruled upon in a Meritorious Precedent Case in the United States of America’s History of 240 years, where the Plaintiff had equal protest with both Major Parties so the Press would have a much harder time defending Obama with Racism, the Court let’s the Country down dismissing the Case on an IFP ( INFORMA PAUPERIS) Denial while the lower Courts practically begged the SCOTUS to hear it?

    [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause ]….[the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen].

    Why didn’t that change? The U.S. Supreme Court Justices can answer proudly to the Poor of the Country :

    Because we Rule Justice According to the Price f*** the Principle?

    AS for the Certification of the Vote of Obama Doc wrote:
    [The certification of the vote has completed. The President of the Senate [did not ask for objections]. No one raised any point of order. The House chamber was largely empty.]

    Obama said of Pres. Bush’s re-election [In his first speech on the Senate floor, Obama said that while he is “absolutely convinced” Bush won the election he recognized the importance of debating the certification.
    “We have an obligation to fix the problems” of voting in the United States, he said.]

    https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=i0o2W7lC1zQ

    Seems like I do recall a voice of objection in the certification of Obama’s 2012 Election. Either the objection was not acknowledged or the objection was that the VP did not ask for any or give any time for that Vote per order of Senate Rules of Operation.

    Joey: Congress was obviously satisfied as well. They have never held a single hearing on natural born citizenship and Article II, Section 1 eligibility and they unanimously certified Barack Obama’s electors, twice, without objection.

  51. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 8:30 pm #

    Cody Judy says: “It’s interesting you’d choose a Judge to quote from the Executive Branch😂 rather then the Judicial Branch. Not that they ( Judicial Branch Judges) care their authority has been gilded like the Legislative Branches.”

    Now Mr. Judy is blaming state law for putting eligibility challenges before Administrative Law Judges. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in that court which was proper procedure in that state and in several other states.

    His ruling was appealed to the New Jersey Superior Court and Certiorari was denied. The reason the birthers lost more than 200 judicial rulings in a row is because the birther argumens run counter to the Constitution. There is no other reason for the many birther judicial defeats.

  52. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 9:01 pm #

    Cody Judy says: “The SCOTUS did not hear it once and they have had two opportunities. That Quality is surely lacking without argument. Most cases were indeed dismissed for lack of standing. Mine lower court cases were not.

    The fact that SCOTUS denied Judy v. Obama 12-5276 & 14-9396, the only Case where the chance of two Presidential Candidates could have both stated arguments about the Qualification Equality subject to Candidates in the U.S. Constitution of [ natural born Citizen] , never heard or ruled upon in a Meritorious Precedent Case in the United States of America’s History of 240 years, where the Plaintiff had equal protest with both Major Parties so the Press would have a much harder time defending Obama with Racism, the Court let’s the Country down dismissing the Case on an IFP ( INFORMA PAUPERIS) Denial while the lower Courts practically begged the SCOTUS to hear it?”

    The Supreme Court of the United States operates on the tradition of “The Rule of Four.” If four of the Justices want an appeal to proceed to oral arguments, it then is granted a Writ of Certiorari. No birther appeal, including Judy’s ever garnered the interest of the requird four Justices. There were 27 Obama eligibility-related appeals that reached the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari stage at the U.S. Supreme Court. All were denied, whether in forma pauperis or not. I’m sure that you are aware that SCOTUS hears way less that 1% of in forma pauperis appeals and about 3% of paid appeals.

  53. avatar
    Rickey December 12, 2016 at 9:02 pm #

    Cody Judy:
    Anti-Birther hypocrisy rest in their tough talk socially, but their flea circus act in the Judicial Branch. .while I have been involved in some 15 Court Cases with actual willingness to make the arguments official, we can’t help notice the unwillingness for anti-Birthers to actually file an Amicus Curiae when even formally invited.

    One of your many problems is that you have not read, or do not understand, the rules of the Supreme Court.

    I call your attention to Rule 37, para. 1:

    “An amicus curiae brief may be filed only by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court as provided in Rule 5.”

    Even if I had wanted to file an amicus curiae brief, it would have been rejected pursuant to Rule 37 because I am not an attorney admitted to practice before SCOTUS.

    It also would have been a waste of my time, because it was apparent that your deficient and meritless cert petition had no chance of being granted.

  54. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 9:21 pm #

    Cody Judy says: “Why didn’t that change? The U.S. Supreme Court Justices can answer proudly to the Poor of the Country.”

    Because we Rule Justice According to the Price f*** the Principle?”
    —–
    If I was a birther who wanted to pursue this issue legally, my first step would have been to enlist a conservative constitutional attorney to work pro bono on my case so that I could triple the chances of my peitition being granted cert by not filing IFP.
    I would have approached any and all of the following:
    The Federalist Society
    The Leadership Institute
    Pacific Legal Foundation
    Institute for Justice
    Landmark Legal Foundation
    National Right-to-Work Legal Defense Foundation
    Center for Equal Opportunity
    Center for Individual Freedom
    The Cato Institute

  55. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 9:31 pm #

    Cody Judy says: “AS for the Certification of the Vote of Obama Doc wrote:
    [The certification of the vote has completed. The President of the Senate [did not ask for objections]. No one raised any point of order. The House chamber was largely empty.]

    Obama said of Pres. Bush’s re-election [In his first speech on the Senate floor, Obama said that while he is “absolutely convinced” Bush won the election he recognized the importance of debating the certification.
    “We have an obligation to fix the problems” of voting in the United States, he said.]

    https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=i0o2W7lC1zQ

    Seems like I do recall a voice of objection in the certification of Obama’s 2012 Election. Either the objection was not acknowledged or the objection was that the VP did not ask for any or give any time for that Vote per order of Senate Rules of Operation.”
    ——
    By law, all objections to the Certification of Electoral votes have to be in writing and must be signed by one Senator and one Representatives. Vice President Cheney in 2008 did not verbally call for objections because none had been received in writing.
    If any Senator and Representative had wanted to submit a written objection, they could have raised a point of order to stop the proceedings, none did. In 2012, Vice President Biden DID call for objections verbally but again, none had been received in writing.
    The Chamber was mostly empty because the counting and certifcation process was strictly pro-forma. That may jot be the case though in 2017!

  56. avatar
    Rickey December 12, 2016 at 9:36 pm #

    Cody Judy:

    The SCOTUS did not hear it once and they have had two opportunities. That Quality is surely lacking without argument. Most cases were indeed dismissed for lack of standing. Mine lower court cases were not.

    That’s because your Georgia case was filed in state court. Federal standing is not an issue in state courts.

    In your Utah case, it was never necessary to address standing because the case never got that far. You filed a Motion for Service of Process, which prompted the Court to review your Complaint. After reading your Complaint, Judge Stewart concluded:

    After carefully reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s suit is frivolous. Plaintiff’s claims lack an arguable basis in law or fact and Plaintiff’s factual allegations border on the irrational and wholly incredible. Moreover, the suit could not survive a motion to dismiss because Plaintiff’s claims rest on conclusory statements rather than factual allegations that plausibly state a claim for relief.

  57. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 9:46 pm #

    3 USC Section 15: Counting Electoral Votes In Congress
    Excerpt
    “Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision;”
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

  58. avatar
    Joey December 12, 2016 at 9:51 pm #

    Rickey: That’s because your Georgia case was filed in state court. Federal standing is not an issue in state courts.

    In your Utah case, it was never necessary to address standing because the case never got that far. You filed a Motion for Service of Process, which prompted the Court to review your Complaint. After reading your Complaint, Judge Stewart concluded:

    Aftercarefully reviewingPlaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s suit is frivolous. Plaintiff’s claims lack an arguable basis in law or fact and Plaintiff’s factual allegations border on the irrational and wholly incredible. Moreover, the suit could not survive a motion to dismiss because Plaintiff’s claims rest on conclusory statements rather than factual allegations that plausibly state a claim for relief.

    Judge Stewart spoke truth to birther.

  59. avatar
    Rickey December 12, 2016 at 9:57 pm #

    Cody Judy:

    Which actually begs the question how many remember Obama in the nursery at Kapiolani? They were many more who did not remember him at Columbia University.

    How many people remember you being in the nursery of the hospital where you were born?

    Columbia has more than 8,000 undergraduates. Obama was enrolled there for only two years, and the likelihood is that only 1% or 2% of the student body ever attended classes with him. Add to that the fact that he lived off-campus, and it is easy to understand why most Columbia students from those years do not remember him.

    Columbia graduate Wayne Allyn Root notably claims that he doesn’t remember Obama, but the graduation records show that Root was on a different class track than the president.

  60. avatar
    bob December 12, 2016 at 11:54 pm #

    Cody Judy:
    the Court let’s the Country down dismissing the Case on an IFP ( INFORMA PAUPERIS) Denial while the lower Courts practically begged the SCOTUS to hear it?

    There is no indication that the lower courts were begging anyone to do anything with the routine rejection of ex-con Judy’s frivolous filings.

    Seems like I do recall a voice of objection in the certification of Obama’s 2012 Election.

    Unsurprisingly, ex-con Judy “recallls” incorrectly, i.e., he lies yet again.

  61. avatar
    Keith December 13, 2016 at 12:38 am #

    Joey: She got away with a Private Server w National Security Breaches why can’t I?

    FALSE.

    Clinton’s server was NEVER breached in any way shape or form.

    On the other hand, the server she “SHOULD” have used, state.gov or what ever it was lost over 250,000 emails to hacking.

    So by doing ‘the wrong thing’ she actually did ‘the right thing’.

    EVERY SINGLE email post that was security ‘challanged’ that ended up on Clinton’s private server was placed there by a professional security analyst (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc) that MANUALLY copied the “secure” information from the secure server to the the non-secure system, and Clinton was NOT that person, in any case what-so-ever. And of course some of these posts were classified AFTER they had been sent to her.

    We know this because the secure systems CAN NOT communicate with the unsecure world in any way. You cannot send an email from a secure system to an unsecure system. Clinton’s contribution to these emails were, IN EVERY CASE, to reply to some minor point, like ‘does X know we are meeting for lunch on Friday to discuss this?’, or whatever.

    Bottom line, once again, Clinton’s server WAS NEVER HACKED; the State Department Server WAS DEFINITELY HACKED – big time.

    And we know this because the FBI report SAYS SO in no uncertain terms – all you have to do is read it.

  62. avatar
    Northland10 December 13, 2016 at 9:11 am #

    Rickey: How many people remember you being in the nursery of the hospital where you were born?

    Columbia has more than 8,000 undergraduates. Obama was enrolled there for only two years, and the likelihood is that only 1% or 2% of the student body ever attended classes with him. Add to that the fact that he lived off-campus, and it is easy to understand why most Columbia students from those years do not remember him.

    There are probably 30,000-40,000 people who do not remember me from my university. Within my discipline, I may have a slightly higher percentage of the norm for people remembering me, but that would be due to the fact that I was a faculty brat.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater December 13, 2016 at 9:44 am #

    Cody Judy: made it into Columbia literally unknown to any class mates.

    I was unaware that you had to be known by 1000s of people attending the school you went to in order for you to have actually attended. That’s odd especially when the school says he went there and his name is in the graduation program and many of his classmates did remember him as well as professors. But hey Judy is okay with anonymous people claiming they didn’t know him based on Wayne Allen Root who uses an alias and only hung around with white kids and was on a different track than Obama.

  64. avatar
    Cody Judy December 13, 2016 at 11:35 am #

    Joey: but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
    House of Representatives, May 22,1789

    Rickey: And if there was any basis to the two citizen parent theory, why didn’t it come up during the 2008 campaign? Why didn’t Corsi mention it in “The Obama Nation?” It’s not as if the citizenship of Obama’s father was a secret.

    Rickey: It also would have been a waste of my time, because it was apparent that your deficient and meritless cert petition had no chance of being granted

    If Congress in 1866 had it figured out why can’t the 2016 Congress, The Entire Federal Judicial Bench & SCOTUS figure it out?

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1372975899403856&id=510896692278452

    NaturalBornCitizen BORNinU.S. to CITIZEN PARENTS @ABC @CBSNews @CNNgo @DRUDGE_REPORT @NBCNews #SCOTUS @SCOTUSblog

    https://t.co/6la9JqXK1X https://t.co/TWkO1ncnzR

    SEE THE PICTURES IN THE LINKS for Reference 1866 . I didn’t make it up. 😂

    There’s been no change officially to the Qualification of Pres since Art. II, Section 1, C-5
    so why are you guys pretending there was when Congress and the House Judiciary Committee knew full well about Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents (two parent ) no parent oweing any foreign allegiance.

    It’s just for the Office of Pres/VP.

  65. avatar
    bob December 13, 2016 at 12:14 pm #

    Cody Judy: so why are you guys pretending there was when Congress and the House Judiciary Committee knew full well about Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents (two parent ) no parent oweing any foreign allegiance.

    Because only birthers like ex-con Judy misread and misapply the Congressional record. And beause birthers like ex-con Judy ignore the subsequent and contrary rulings by the courts.

  66. avatar
    Rickey December 13, 2016 at 1:22 pm #

    Cody Judy:
    SEE THE PICTURES IN THE LINKS for Reference 1866 . I didn’t make it up.

    First of all, because you have a reading comprehension problem you don’t realize that the excerpt from the Congressional Globe doesn’t say what you think it says.

    Second, even if it did say what you think it says, it represents the opinion of just one congressman, John Bingham of Ohio.

    Third, Mr. Bingham’s comments were made on March 9, 1866. The 14th Amendment, which clarified who were citizens at birth, wasn’t ratified until July 28, 1868

    And for your further edification, this was the understanding of the meaning of “natural born citizen” in 1904:

    Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases, Volume 5 (1904), p. 4664

    Every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan, 5 Atl. 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle, Const. U.S. p. 86. See also Lynch v. Clarke (N.Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch 584, 2 Kent, Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v. Campbell (U.S.) 16 Fed, Cas. 157; Field, Int. Code, 132; Morse, Citizenship § 203

  67. avatar
    Rickey December 13, 2016 at 1:46 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: I was unaware that you had to be known by 1000s of people attending the school you went to in order for you to have actually attended.That’s odd especially when the school says he went there and his name is in the graduation program and many of his classmates did remember him as well as professors.

    During my last two years in the Navy (approximately the same length of time that Obama was at Columbia), I was on an aircraft carrier which had about 3,000 sailors aboard while we were deployed.Unlike Obama at Columbia, however, we sailors were together 24 hours a day while at sea. Nevertheless, I doubt that more than 100 or so would remember me if they heard my name today.

    It’s the nature of being part of any large organization. You get to know the people you closely live and work with. The others, who are assigned to different departments or have different majors, are anonymous to you and you to them.

    When I went to college after the Navy I was a commuter, much the way Obama was at Columbia. I didn’t live in a dormitory, and when I didn’t have classes I wasn’t on the campus. I knew many, but far from all, of my fellow History majors, but students in other disciplines were mostly strangers to me.

  68. avatar
    Rickey December 13, 2016 at 2:53 pm #

    CRJ:

    Contrary to what you say on your blog, Maricopa County does not border Mexico.

    Chandler, Arizona, the southernmost town in Maricopa County, is 162 miles from the Mexican border.

    You’re welcome.

  69. avatar
    Cody Judy December 13, 2016 at 4:28 pm #

    Rickey: First of all, because you have a reading comprehension problem you don’t realize that the excerpt from the Congressional Globe doesn’t say what you think it says.

    It says exactly what I think it says. The 14th Amendment was not a replacement for the qualifications of the office of President and OH Rep. Bingham presenting his persuasive argument for it’s passage by expressly recognizing Congress only had powers of “Adoption” or ‘naturalization’, and that it had no right of passage to the pixie dust of declaring it had a right to rob someone of (“Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents’) – [natural born Citizenship], with the conclusion it was a ‘naturalization’ definition.

    But the part your missing is how respected he was to the Principle of [natural born Citizen] in declaring [twice] that neither parent could owe foreign allegiance and claim to be a [natural born citizen].

    [ of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty] I suppose you think that owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty does not include the fractured allegiance of a child with one U.S. Citizen Parent and one Foreign Parent? Owing allegiance was a respectful term in recognizing the foreign citizenship, and there was no bones about the father or mother, it was [of parents].

    I found that quite refreshing to the nasty and testy abrasive comments that there was no one except me who believed the born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents was the definition of [natural born Citizen]. I actually found myself in good company and I thought you would have to?

    [I find know fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born [within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen]; but sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that [any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.] Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him. But while this is admitted, can you declare by congressional enactment as to citizens of the United States within the States that there be no discrimination among them of civil rights?]

    I thought it was very nice of Rep. John Bingham to back up the jurisdiction of soil as well both Parents (inherited citizenship) in the criteria of describing [natural born Citizen]. I’d seen it before but not in the context of his argument on the page.

    Thank you for the 162 mile heads up by the way Rickey – I inserted the word (near) for you. Happy to see your reading my Blog clear to the end!
    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2016/12/sheriff-possee-finale-can-of-worms.html

    Rickey: 162 miles from the Mexican border.

  70. avatar
    bob December 13, 2016 at 5:38 pm #

    It appears ex-con Judy’s scholarship is (unsurprisingly) lacking, as Bingham also said:

    The words “natural born citizen of the United States” appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens.

    Ex-con Judy cherrypicking can only take him so far.

  71. avatar
    Cody Judy December 13, 2016 at 6:30 pm #

    bob: Judy cherrypicking can only take him so far.

    How about 4th President James Madison?

    May 22, 1789 419 OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS 420
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=211

    Madison said he conceives that birth and residence in this country before the revolution could not confer citizenship on Americans who were absent when independence was declared, while they were absent , and anterior to their returning and joining their country under its new independent Government;

    Birth in the country to alien parents did not confer citizenship to Mr. Smith who was born in South Carolina, while a British Colony and his parents were both dead many years before the declaration of independence [for no man can be born a citizen of a Government which did not exist at the time of his being born.]

    What this does is confirms that the Founders knew they were not [natural born Citizens] of a new Nation (many being born there even to people who had been born there under various other foreign allegiances) and thus it required [the grandfather clause] that so many here start rapping jiggy-boo boo about saying there was no such thing as a grandfather clause. Totally a false assumption.

    The [natural born Citizens] were those [born in the Country to Citizen Parents] as Bingham stated [owing no foreign allegiances]

    Madison said you could not be a Citizen to a country that did not exist yet which makes pretty good sense as far as Jurisdiction of soil and the requirement that to be President you either had to be a [Citizen]

    AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION

    or a natural born Citizen there after owing no foreign allegiance by birth place or parents according to Bingham.

    This confirms the Grandfather clause in Article II. Section 1, Clause 5 of [Citizen] and why it was necessary as no [natural born Citizens] even existed including President George Washington, and the fact [natural born Citizens] are those born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents owing no foreign allegiance.

    Obama fails to qualify.

    I do not think it a bad thing if Congress entertained hearings and an Amendment was passed per Order. What is bad is the sloppy rip-rod twine and tape work undertaken here to claim Obama is eligible. And with all of the support you have and Obama has why not get together and hire an attorney qualified to practice in the SCOTUS and filed an Amicus Curiae? Your positions are very weak inside a real Court Room in the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Art II. Section 1, Clause 5 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

  72. avatar
    Joey December 13, 2016 at 7:18 pm #

    Cody Judy says: “If Congress in 1866 had it figured out why can’t the 2016 Congress, The Entire Federal Judicial Bench & SCOTUS figure it out?”

    It is 100% “figured out” just not the way that you wanted it to be figured out. The 14th Amendment, U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) and current U,S. Law {8 U.S.C. § 1401: US Code – Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth}- http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/III/I/1401#sthash.wEwzeysH.dpuf
    provide all the figuring out that has ever been required

  73. avatar
    Rickey December 13, 2016 at 8:42 pm #

    Cody Judy: It says exactly what I think it says. The 14th Amendment was not a replacement for the qualifications of the office of President and OH Rep. Bingham presenting his persuasive argument for it’s passage by expressly recognizing Congress only had powers of “Adoption” or ‘naturalization’, and that it had no right of passage to the pixie dust of declaring it had a right to rob someone of (“Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents’) – [natural born Citizenship], with the conclusion it was a ‘naturalization’ definition.

    Talking to you is like talking to my cat, except that my cat has more sense.

    Rep. Bingham wasn’t talking about the 14th Amendment on March 9, 1866. He was talking about the Civil Rights Act, which he opposed. The House didn’t even begin to debate the 14th Amendment until May 8, two months after Bingham made the remarks which you erroneously claim represented the views of the entire Congress. In fact, Bingham opposed the civil rights bill because his own state’s constitution had a clause which said that only white citizens could hold public office.

    The reality is that no Congress and no Supreme Court has ever stated that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents.

    Thank you for the 162 mile heads up by the way Rickey – I inserted the word (near) for you. Happy to see your reading my Blog clear to the end!

    Don’t flatter yourself. A couple of paragraphs of your misspellings and tortured prose is all that I could take.

  74. avatar
    Rickey December 13, 2016 at 10:06 pm #

    Cody Judy:

    Birth in the country to alien parents did not confer citizenship to Mr. Smith who was born in South Carolina, while a British Colony and his parents were both dead many years before the declaration of independence[for no man can be born a citizen of a Government which did not exist at the time of his being born.]

    Once again you are wrong, because you cherry-pick your quotations and fail to read Madison’s remarks to their conclusion. In fact, Madison concluded that Smith was indeed a citizen, as you would have seen if you had read ahead to page 423:

    So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that State, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own, that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of Independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and, consequently, entitled to a seat in this Legislature.

  75. avatar
    bob December 14, 2016 at 8:11 am #

    The really hilarious part is that, after eight years of these lies, ex-con Judy thinks that his are novel.

  76. avatar
    Rickey December 14, 2016 at 11:17 am #

    bob:
    The really hilarious part is that, after eight years of these lies, ex-con Judy thinks that his are novel.

    The reality is that no one had ever heard of the supposed “two-citizen parents requirement” until Leo Donofrio dreamed it up in 2008. It doesn’t appear in any history, civics, or law textbook and has never been taught in any school. No court in the land has ever given it credence.

    When Obama announced his candidacy for president in 2007 it was widely known that his father was a citizen of Kenya. No one cared. No one stood up said, “Wait, he’s not a natural born citizen because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen.”

    The amusing part is that Judy actually thought that Madison was arguing against William Smith’s citizenship claim.

  77. avatar
    Cody Judy December 14, 2016 at 1:04 pm #

    Rickey: No one cared. No one stood up said, “Wait, he’s not a natural born citizen because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen.”

    I did raise it in Judy v. McCain , it was also included in Democrat Phil Bergs SCOTUS Cert. that I filed Amicus Curiae in.

    Another point is this. Unless you’re a Candidate the Court’s ruled in 2008 you had no standing. Complicating it more, If standing wasn’t the problem you could be denied the [damages] until the nomination was actually won by that person. If they didn’t win the nomination in the mutual Political Party the case was [ moot] See Judy v. McCain (McCain lost general election case is moot. )

    That meant Obama had a free grace period to get-the-ball rolling,but most importantly shows Ricky is playing games with his uninvolved inexperienced assertions. Why didn’t Rickey ever file an Amicus Curiae of interest to encourage Resolve? Was it a lack of money to hire a Qualified Attorney for a 5 page doc? Arm Chair quarterbacks are the best aren’t they?

    Obama’s biggest competition HRC made her biggest mistake in 2007 -08 co-sponsoring with Obama McCain’s U.S. Sen. Res 511. It was a Democratic Party Controlled Senate

    I wonder about who got who to sign on it though? Would have liked hearing that opening. I think it was Obama who engaged Clinton on it and she under-estimated him as a freshman Senator.

    It was a problem Obama knew he had to cover in his own aspirations or back door and had more to do with creating a Racist Frame than about magnamity for McCain of the Republican Party.

    Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate 07-09 w their boogie man as Pres GWB.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress

    Obama created the Racist framework to any opposition to his Ineligibility in that Non binding resolution and continues his wedge driving today.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/11602/watch-obama-says-america-has-not-overcome-legacies-frank-camp

  78. avatar
    Joey December 14, 2016 at 1:22 pm #

    Birther challenges to Obama’s eligibility on the theory that he was not born in Hawaii had tremendous evidentiary hurdles to overcome and they were never able to overcome them.
    1) Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth has been officially verified three times by the Hawaii state Registrar Alvin Onaka (twice for state Secretaries of State in Arizona and Kansas and once for a federal judge in Mississippi) and three statements of authenticity have been issued in press releases by two Hawaii Directors of Health (Dr. Fukino and Loretta Fuddy).
    2. Hawaii’s Republican Governor from 2002 until 2010, Linda Lingle stated in a radio interview that “its been established, he was born here. And that’s a fact.”
    3) Index Data for the Obama Hawaii birth is published on the Hawaii Department of Health’s web site.
    4) “Health Bureau Statistics” data for the birth published in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser on August 13, 1961
    5) Listing of “Marriage Applications, Births and Deaths published in the August 14, 1961 edition of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
    6) Immigration and Naturalization Service Officer William Wood’s memo of the Student Visa Extension interview with Barack Obama Senior conducted on August 31, 1961 documents the birth of a son to a U.S. citizen wife in Honolulu on 8/4/61.
    7) September 14, 1967 Immigration and Naturalization Service Agent W.L. Mix documents that Lolo Soetoro has a U.S. citizen step son born in Honolulu on 8/4/61
    8) January 1, 1968 application to attend Santo Franciskus Asissi Catholic School in Jakarta, Indonesia lists “Honolulu, Hawaii” as Barack Obama, II’s birthplace.
    9) February 6, 1990 New York Times profile of Obama when he was elected President of Volume for the Harvard Law Review mentions Hawaii as his birthplace.
    10) February 7, 1990 profile of Obama in the Chicago Tribune lists Hawaii as his birthplace.
    11) February 8, 1990 profile of Obama in the Washington Post discusses his birth in Hawaii.
    12) May 3, 1990 profile of Obama in the Chicago Daily Herald says that he was born in Hawaii.
    13) Columbia University magazine “Columbia Today” did an article on Barack Obama for its Fall, 1990 edition. The article states that he was born in Hawaii.
    14) Chicago Magazine article in the January, 1993 edition says Obama was born in Hawaii.
    15) Chicago Tribune article of February 10, 1993 “25 Chicagoans On The Road To Making A Difference” lists Barack Obama, born in Hawaii.”
    16) August 7, 1995 Los Angeles Times review of “Dreams From My Father” written by Barack Obama states that he was born in Hawaii.
    17) October 1, 1999: Obama’s Illinois state Senate page lists Hawaii as his birthplace.
    18) January 22, 2003 Chicago Daily Herald article on Obama’s Senate campaign states that Obama was born in Hawaii.
    19) June 24, 2004 Time Magazine article on Obama running for the U.S. Senate says that he was born in Hawaii.
    20) Obama’s U.S. Passport lists Hawaii as his birthplace.
    21) U.S. House Resolution 593 (111th Congress) contains a “whereas clause” stating that “the 44th President of the United States was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” the resolution passed the House on a vote of 378-0.

  79. avatar
    bob December 14, 2016 at 1:52 pm #

    Cody Judy: I did raise it in Judy v. McCain , it was also included in Democrat Phil Bergs SCOTUS Cert. that I filed Amicus Curiae in.

    Thanks for proving Ricky’s point: both were filed only after Donofrio had invented his “theory.”

    Unless you’re a Candidate the Court’s ruled in 2008 you had no standing.

    Many state courts don’t have a standing requirement. But no one thought to test this two-citizen-parent “rule” in a state court until Donofrio tried — and failed.

    Why didn’t Rickey ever file an Amicus Curiae of interest to encourage Resolve?

    Because an amicus brief wouldn’t aid a court in disposing of a frivolous case.

    Was it a lack of money to hire a Qualified Attorney for a 5 page doc?

    Ex-con Judy should spend less time worrying about people’s financial condition, and more time about his family’s.

    Obama created the Racist framework to any opposition to his Ineligibility in that Non binding resolution and continues his wedge driving today.

    Of course: It is President Obama’s fault that racists showed their stripes, or so says ex-con “personal responsibility” Judy.

  80. avatar
    Joey December 14, 2016 at 1:52 pm #

    The birther theory of two U.S. citizen parents being required was resolved quite early, in 2009 via the Indiana eligibility challenge Ankeny & Kruse v Governor Mitch Daniels. Two Indiana residents did have standing under Indiana law to sue Republican Governor Mitch Daniels (who had served as President George W. Bush’s Director of Management and Budget, OMB). The lawsuit attempted to enjoin Governor Daniels from certifying Obama’s electors in Indiana.
    The original trial court ruled in Governor Daniels’ favor and the Indiana Court of Appeals issued a landmark ruling that became the most frequently cited ruling on the two citizen parent theory (as applied to Barack Obama) in other state and federal eligibility challenges.
    The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”–November 12, 2009
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

    The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Indiana Supreme Court but they were denied cert.
    The political optics of two Republican governors, Lingle of Hawaii on birthplace and Daniels of Indiana on parentage defending Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship was extremely important.

  81. avatar
    Keith December 14, 2016 at 1:53 pm #

    Cody Judy: I did raise it in Judy v. McCain , it was also included in Democrat Phil Bergs SCOTUS Cert. that I filed Amicus Curiae in.

    That’s exactly what Rickey said… no one stepped up and objected.

  82. avatar
    bob December 14, 2016 at 1:56 pm #

    Joey:
    The plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Indiana Supreme Court but they were denied cert

    And birthers lacked the courage of their convictions to file amicus briefs with the Indiana Supreme Court. Just as birthers lacked the courage to seek review of this case in the U.S. Supreme Court.

  83. avatar
    Joey December 14, 2016 at 2:17 pm #

    Cody Judy says: “Obama created the Racist framework to any opposition to his Ineligibility in that Non binding resolution and continues his wedge driving today.”

    What was the “racist framework” created by Senate Resolution 511? I see nothing in that resolution that has anything to do with race. Senator Claire McCaskill was the non-binding resolution’s sponsor.
    The only Senator who ever spoke on the resolution was Senator Patrick Leahy in hs role as Chair of the Judiciary Committee.
    The resolution was passed by unanimous consent.
    https://votesmart.org/public-statement/332499/senate-resolution-511-recognizing-that-john-sidney-mccain-iii-is-a-natural-born-citizen#.WFGY9GUq2rU

  84. avatar
    Cody Judy December 14, 2016 at 3:00 pm #

    Joey: What was the “racist framework” created by Senate Resolution 511?

    Because if you gave McCain a pass, you sure couldn’t object to Obama without looking like a Racist. Ask PEOTUS Donald J. Trump how many times he was called a ‘racist’ by MSM in 2011?

    Every Republican Senator voted for it U.S. Sen. non-binding Resolution. It cornered the Senate in any opposition to Obama successfully.

    Joey: Ankeny & Kruse v Governor Mitch Daniels. Two Indiana residents did have standing under Indiana law to sue Republican Governor Mitch Daniels (who had served as President George W. Bush’s Director of Management and Budget, OMB). The lawsuit attempted to enjoin Governor Daniels from certifying Obama’s electors in Indiana.

    The Indiana Supreme Court is NOT where one ordinarily goes looking for precedent. Why wasn’t it appealed to the SCOTUS?

    Obama used it quite often. It’s a very pertinent case where it should have been dismissed on lack of standing.

    That reason alone dismisses the speculations and extrapolations of the Rulings. We all know this.

    https://citizenwells.com/tag/ankeny-v-daniels-appeal-court-ruling-written-by-competent-judge/
    [This appeals decision wisely does NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. Even by its own rationale, it can’t, because to date, there has been no legal evidence Obama was born in the United States. None was presented here and the court does NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii. This decision’s opinions on NBC are nothing more than window dressing. The meat of the decision is in the first part where it dismisses the case on a procedural obstacle … failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the state’s version of “standing.” It says the governor of Indiana can’t be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates.]

  85. avatar
    bob December 14, 2016 at 3:13 pm #

    Cody Judy: Because if you gave McCain a pass, you sure couldn’t object to Obama without looking like a Racist.

    S.R. 511 wasn’t racist: racists inventing a non-existent rule that was applied disproportionately to non-whites was racist; duh.

    Why wasn’t it appealed to the SCOTUS?

    Because birthers are moral cowards; duh.

    It’s a very pertinent case where it should have been dismissed on lack of standing.

    State courts don’t have the same standing requirements as federal courts, “counselor.”

    This appeals decision wisely does NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen.

    It “merely” rules that natural-born citizenship includes everyone born in the United States. President Obama was born in Hawaii; Hawaii was in the United States at the time of his birth; ergo, President Obama is a natural-born citizen; duh.

    there has been no legal evidence Obama was born in the United States.

    Other that President Obama’s birth certificate, which is accepted by every state and the federal government.

    failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the state’s version of “standing.”

    Failure to state a claim and standing are two very different concepts, “counselor.”

    But if the past is prologue, ex-con Judy will insist on doubling down with even more lies.

  86. avatar
    Joey December 14, 2016 at 4:06 pm #

    Cody Judy: Because if you gave McCain a pass, you sure couldn’t object to Obama without looking like a Racist. Ask PEOTUS Donald J. Trump how many times he was called a ‘racist’ by MSM in 2011?

    Every Republican Senator voted for it U.S. Sen. non-binding Resolution. It cornered the Senate in any opposition to Obama successfully.

    The Indiana Supreme Court is NOT where one ordinarily goes looking for precedent. Why wasn’t it appealed to the SCOTUS?

    Obama used it quite often. It’s a very pertinent case where it should have been dismissed on lack of standing.

    That reason alone dismisses the speculations and extrapolations of the Rulings. We all know this.

    https://citizenwells.com/tag/ankeny-v-daniels-appeal-court-ruling-written-by-competent-judge/
    [This appeals decision wisely does NOT declare Obama to be a natural-born citizen. Even by its own rationale, it can’t, because to date, there has been no legal evidence Obama was born in the United States. None was presented here and the court does NOT say Obama was born in Hawaii. This decision’s opinions on NBC are nothing more than window dressing. The meat of the decision is in the first part where it dismisses the case on a procedural obstacle … failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which is the state’s version of “standing.” It says the governor of Indiana can’t be held responsible for vetting presidential candidates.]

    Once the Republican Governor of Hawaii stated uneqivocably that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, it took all the wind out of the sails of that theory. And on top of that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin called bithers “annoying” and the birther issue “a distraction.”
    Sarah Palin
    Interviewer: “Do you question his faith and citizenship?”
    Governor Palin: “I don’t, and those are distractions, What we’re concerned about is the economy. And we’re concerned about the policies coming out of his administration and what he believes in terms of big government or private sector. So, no, the faith, the birth certificate, others can engage in that kind of conversation. It’s distracting. It gets annoying and let’s just stick with what really matters.”
    http://youtu.be/HMKwo_Cz8mw

    The law in Indiana gives every citizen the right to challenge a candidate’s eligibility. The lawsuit was dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
    You’re comparing apples and oranges. A non-binding Senate resolution carries no force of law, it only gave the sense of the Senate. It was Claire McCaskill’s resolution not Obama’s. Court cases that definitively ruled on the two U.S. parent theory of natural born citizenship and rejected it are a completely different matter.
    You’d have to ask the plaintiffs, Ankeny and Kruse why they didn’t appeal to SCOTUS.
    There may not have been enough legal evidence for you but there certainly was for actual judges who ruled on Obama’s birthplace and natural born citizenship.
    For example, I can’t imagine a more concise and clear ruling than this: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
    Or this, the judge in this eligibility challenge had received a copy of Obama’s birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health which had been requested by Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonsky: “For the purposes of this analysis, the Court considered that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly, President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary under O.C.G.A. under Section 21-2-5(b). February 3, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80424508/Swensson-Powell-Farrar-Welden-vs-Obama-Judge-Michael-Malihi-s-Final-Order-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-2-3-12

  87. avatar
    Arthur B. December 14, 2016 at 4:30 pm #

    Cody Judy: Why wasn’t it appealed to the SCOTUS?

    Excellent question, Cody. I think you’ll agree that it was a decision for the birther plaintiffs to make, and they chose not to appeal.

    The choice that they made left them, and other birthers like you, in the position to whine that the Supreme Court has yet to resolve the issue. On the other hand, appealing would have involved a risk — if the case were heard and the Indiana decision affirmed, it would have been a firm and final smackdown of a favorite birther meme.

    To me, their failure to appeal showed clearly that they were afraid to take that risk because they didn’t have much confidence in their chances of winning.

    Do you have a different explanation?

  88. avatar
    Joey December 14, 2016 at 5:16 pm #

    Arthur B.: Excellent question, Cody. I think you’ll agree that it was a decision for the birther plaintiffs to make, and they chose not to appeal.

    The choice that they made left them, and other birthers like you, in the position to whine that the Supreme Court has yet to resolve the issue. On the other hand, appealing would have involved a risk — if the case were heard and the Indiana decision affirmed, it would have been a firm and final smackdown of a favorite birther meme.

    To me, their failure to appeal showed clearly that they were afraid to take that risk because they didn’t have much confidence in their chances of winning.

    Do you have a different explanation?

    Or, like Cody Judy, they couldn’t raise the filing fees and duplicating costs by taking newspapers and soda/beer cans to recycling.

    Other birther appeals did make it to the Supreme Court of the United States however:
    1) Anderson v. Obama (Cert* Denied)
    2) Barnett, et. al. v. Obama, et. al. (Cert Denied)
    3)Barnett v Padilla (Cert Denied)
    4) Berg v. Obama, et. al. (Stay Denied & Cert Denied)
    5) Beverly v. Federal Elections Commission (Cert Denied)
    6) Craig v. United States (Cert Denied)
    7) Donofrio v. Wells (Application for Stay Denied)
    8) Dummett, et. al. v Padilla (Cert Denied)
    9) Fair v. Walker (Cert Denied)
    10) Farrar v. Obama & Kemp (App. For Stay & Cert Denied)
    11) Herbert v. United States, et. al. (Cert Denied)
    12)) Hollister v. Soetoro (Cert Denied)
    13) Judy v. Obama, et. al. (Cert Denied)
    14) Kerchner, et. al. v. Obama, et. al. (Cert Denied)
    15) Keyes v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Cert Denied)
    16) Lightfoot v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Stay Denied)
    17) Noonan v. CA. Secretary of State Bowen (Stay Denied)
    18) Paige v. Vermont (Cert Denied)
    19) Purpura v. Sibelius (Cert Denied)
    20) Rhodes v. Mac Donald (Injunction & Cert Denied)
    21) Schneller v. Cortes (Emergency relief & Cert Denied)
    22) ex. rel. Sibley v. Obama (Cert Denied)
    23) Sibley v. DC Board of Elections (Cert Denied )
    24) In re: Voeltz (Cert. Denied, Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, Denied)
    25) Vogt v. Obama/In re: Vogt (Cert Denied)
    26) Welden v. Obama (Cert Denied)
    27) Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Application for Stay Denied)

    *”Cert”= A Petition for a “Writ of Certiorari” which is a request for an appeal to be heard in oral arguments before the Court. It takes four Justices to agree to grant a “Cert” Petition, known as “The Rule of Four”.

  89. avatar
    Northland10 December 14, 2016 at 6:29 pm #

    Hmm, there was one Amicus filed in Berg v Obama. Lawrence Joyce filed one on behalf of Bill Anderson, an elector from Arizona. I don’t think Cody is either of them, nor did the Amicus mention the citizenship of the parents.

  90. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund December 14, 2016 at 7:06 pm #

    Cody Judy: How about 4th President James Madison?

    May 22, 1789 419 OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS 420
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=211

    Madison said he conceives that birth and residence in this country before the revolution could not confer citizenship on Americans who were absent when independence was declared, while they were absent , and anterior to their returning and joining their country under its new independent Government;

    Birth in the country to alien parents did not confer citizenship to Mr. Smith who was born in South Carolina, while a British Colony and his parents were both dead many years before the declaration of independence [for no man can be born a citizen of a Government which did not exist at the time of his being born.]

    Cody once again displays his utter lack of reading comprehension. Madison never said any of that, unless he was reading Dr. Ramsey’s petition out loud. Madison directly opposed Dr. Ramsey’s position, saying that Smith was indeed a citizen, and that place of birth was what mattered in the US, not parentage. Only one person sided with Dr. Ramsey. Furthermore, it was well-acknowledged that Madison was the delegate that wrote the Eligibility Clause as a member of the Committee of Unfinished Parts. Three of the other 10 members of that committee were also members of the House at that time and all three voted with Madison and against Dr. Ramsey.

    Here are Madison’s full remarks upon the matter. As you can see, he is in direct opposition to Dr. Ramsey:

    I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this house or not, but it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United-States or not.

    From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. Smith, was on the declaration of independence a citizen of the United-States, and unless it appears that he has forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of his election to a seat in this house. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South-Carolina, so far as they can guide us, and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature so far as they are applicable to the present case.

    It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principles before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles.

    It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

    It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the public, that the petitioner is a man of talents, one who would not lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles: yet I cannot but think he has erred in one of the principles upon which he grounds his charge. He supposes, when this country separated from Great Britain, the tie of allegiance subsisted between the inhabitants of America and the king of that nation, unless by some adventitious circumstance the allegiance was transferred to one of the United States. I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society. This distinction will be illustrated by the doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship, but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation; it is necessary that a national act should pass to admit an individual member. In order to become a member of the British empire, where birth has now endowed the person with that privilege, he must be naturalized by an act of parliament.

    What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance as a citizen of South-Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up, because it was through his membership of the society of South-Carolina, that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.

    This reasoning will hold good, unless it is supposed that the separation which took place between these states and Great Britain, not only dissolved the union between those countries, but dissolved the union among the citizens themselves: that the original compact, which made them altogether one society, being dissolved, they could not fall into pieces, each part making an independent society, but must individually revert into a state of nature; but I do not conceive that this was of necessity to be the case; I believe such a revolution did not absolutely take place. But in supposing that this was the case lies the error of the memorialist. I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connection with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which they had for special considerations abolished. Suppose the state of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of government: Surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.

    If it is said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must therefore pay a proper attention to this principle. But I think it can hardly be expected by gentlemen that the principle will operate dangerously. Those who left their country to take part with Britain were of two descriptions, minors, or persons of mature age. With respect to the latter nothing can be inferred with respect to them from the decision on the present case; because they had the power of making an option between the contending parties: whether this was a matter of right or not is a question which need not be agitated in order to settle the case before us. Then, with respect to those natives who were minors at the revolution, and whose case is analogous to Mr. Smith’s, if we are bound by the precedent of such a decision as we are about to make, and it is declared, that they owe a primary allegiance to this country, I still think we are not likely to be inundated with such characters; so far as any of them took part against us they violated their allegiance and opposed our laws; so then there can be only a few characters, such as were minors at the revolution, and who have never violated their allegiance by a foreign connection, who can be affected by the decision of the present question. The number I admit is large who might be acknowledged citizens on my principles; but there will very few be found daring enough to face the laws of the country they have violated, and against which they have committed high treason.

    So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that state, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and consequently entitled to a seat in this legislature.

  91. avatar
    justlw December 14, 2016 at 7:55 pm #

    Rickey: the likelihood is that only 1% or 2% of the student body ever attended classes with him.

    “Anything interesting happen at school today?”

    “Funny you should ask — in one of my classes, I got to sit next to future President Barack Obama!”

    The odd thing is this is exactly how the joke was printed when I first read it 40 years ago.

  92. avatar
    Joey December 14, 2016 at 8:09 pm #

    Cody Judy says: “Because if you gave McCain a pass, you sure couldn’t object to Obama without looking like a Racist. Ask PEOTUS Donald J. Trump how many times he was called a ‘racist’ by MSM in 2011?”

    Psst…Donald Trump managed to get elected in spite of being called names. Barack Obama also managed to get elected despite being called names by his political opposition.
    Also Senate Resolution 511 was passed by Unanimous Consent, there was no roll call vote so no Senator had to take an individual position on the resolution.

  93. avatar
    Whatever4 December 14, 2016 at 10:20 pm #

    Deja vu….

  94. avatar
    Rickey December 15, 2016 at 12:43 am #

    Cody Judy: I did raise it in Judy v. McCain , it was also included in Democrat Phil Bergs SCOTUS Cert. that I filed Amicus Curiae in.

    Wrong. Berg argued that Obama was lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian national.

    https://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573

    SCOTUS has no record of you filing an Amicus Curiae brief in Berg’s case. Someone named Bill Anderson did file an Amicus Curiae. Anderson is or was a resident of Arizona, and and Amicus Curiae was filed by an attorney, Lawrence Joyce. Significantly, the brief makes no mention of the citizenship of Obama’s father.

    http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/files/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf

    No. 08-570
    Title:
    Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
    v.
    Barack Obama, et al.
    Docketed: October 31, 2008
    Linked with 08A391
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Case Nos.: (08-4340)
    Rule 11

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
    Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
    Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
    Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
    Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
    Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
    Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
    Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
    Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
    Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
    Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
    Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.
    Jan 12 2009 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson GRANTED.
    Jan 12 2009 Petition DENIED.
    Jan 21 2009 Application (08A505) denied by the Court.

    Anyway, my point was that nobody of any significance raised the issue of Obama’s father until Leo Donofrio dreamed it up. The McCain campaign didn’t raise it, the RNC didn’t raise it, even WND and Jerome Corsi failed to raise it. If the argument had any merit, it would have become a campaign issue.

    That meant Obama had a free grace period to get-the-ball rolling,but most importantly shows Ricky is playing games with his uninvolved inexperienced assertions. Why didn’t Rickey ever file an Amicus Curiae of interest to encourage Resolve? Was it a lack of money to hire a Qualified Attorney for a 5 page doc? Arm Chair quarterbacks are the best aren’t they?

    I saw no reason to file an Amicus Curiae brief. As the SCOTUS docket shows, the respondents waived their right to respond to Berg’s petition and not a single justice called for a response. It therefore was a foregone conclusion that Berg’s petition was going to be denied.

    Obama’s biggest competition HRC made her biggest mistake in 2007 -08 co-sponsoring with Obama McCain’s U.S. Sen.Res 511. It was a Democratic Party Controlled Senate.

    I wonder about who got who to sign on it though? Would have liked hearing that opening.I think it was Obama who engaged Clinton on it and she under-estimated him as a freshman Senator.

    Senator McCaskill was the sponsor of Senate Resolution 511. Obama was one of five co-sponsors, including Republican Tom Coburn. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee, which of course consisted of both Democrats and Republicans. No member of the Judiciary Committee objected to it. It was then passed in the Senate by unanimous consent.

  95. avatar
    Rickey December 15, 2016 at 12:10 pm #

    Unsurprisingly, ex-con Judy lies when he claims that the raised the “two-citizen parent” theory in Judy v. McCain. His Complaint is on his website, and nowhere does it mention Obama’s parents. In fact, Obama wasn’t a party to that failed lawsuit.

    http://codyjudy.us/information/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_028.htm

    You may have to zoom to read the tiny print.

    There is a reference in Judy’s Complaint to Berg v. Obama, but Berg didn’t raise the two-citizen parent theory either. Berg claimed that Obama was born in Kenya, and also that if he had U.S. citizenship he lost it when his mother married an Indonesian national. Both claims were false, of course.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/28/lawsuit-questions-obamas-eligibility-for-office/

  96. avatar
    Reality Check December 15, 2016 at 1:20 pm #

    You are correct that Berg lnever pushed Donofrio’s two citizen parent theory. He said the two citizen parent theory was completely wrong.

    Rickey: There is a reference in Judy’s Complaint to Berg v. Obama, but Berg didn’t raise the two-citizen parent theory either. Berg claimed that Obama was born in Kenya, and also that if he had U.S. citizenship he lost it when his mother married an Indonesian national. Both claims were false, of course.

  97. avatar
    Rickey December 15, 2016 at 2:05 pm #

    Reality Check:
    You are correct that Berg never pushed Donofrio’s two citizen parent theory. He said the two citizen parent theory was completely wrong.

    And if Judy submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in Berg’s case, it went into the circular file because – Surprise! – he failed to follow the rules.

  98. avatar
    Cody Judy December 15, 2016 at 4:06 pm #

    Rickey: And if Judy submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in Berg’s case, it went into the circular file because – Surprise! – he failed to follow the rules.

    Rickey: Unsurprisingly, ex-con Judy lies when he claims that the raised the “two-citizen parent” theory in Judy v. McCain.

    You might have the courtesy to ask rather than label which is contrary to the Blogs Guidelines? I may be wrong about Rickey where I thought he was licenced in a particular state to practise law.

    This would give him access to the Docket Report of Judy v. McCain and the specific entry made just before the Ending Ruling entitled with the words-

    [ Emergency Motion ]

    http://codyjudy.us/information/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_029.htm

    This covers questions about inheritance of father Kenya

    [Through extensive investigation, learned that
    Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Obama’s
    biological father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama’s
    mother a U.S. citizen who was not old enough to
    register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born”
    United States Citizen]

    This was a verification of Berg’s Lawsuit and findings of SCOTUS not to hear Cert due to standing, as well my own request of Amicus Curaie submitted as a Candidate for Pres with Standing.

    What I felt like this did was arm my Federal Judge with all the information and intelligence that there would be no excuse for not being at least Briefed on Obama and the tough situation of standing being regulated by the Court’s to fit only a Person who had actually won a Presidential Election for Standing to be satisfied because of the public implications of Election Interference made necessary by the lack of responsibility the Court’s laid or gave to Candidates who are ineligible.

    The burden was mine as a Candidate with Standing where the public, Representatives, Senators, Judges, had no standing.

    The definition of [ natural born Citizen ]( ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) was definitely represented in Judy v. McCain, and this must have been obvious to Rickey if he read the small print.

    Of course I’ve tried to keep my Web site up to consistently show my standing throughout 2008, 2012, and 2016.

    That is the reason you can read it at all without having to get a copy through the Legal Channels of Court Officials.

    Your welcome. I suppose complaining about the small print is better than no print as zooming is at least available.

    I know the SCOTUS Brief is not listed but it is there and I’ve deliberated many times on here and my own Blog SCOTUS is not obligated to print on their Docket as thoroughly as lower Courts having shown many entries I’ve sent in also not recorded in 12-5276 or 14-9396

    Now again, attorneys who are licenced to practise in particular in SCOTUS may have privilege.

  99. avatar
    Joey December 15, 2016 at 4:18 pm #

    From Rule 37: SCOTUS
    2. (a) An amicus curiae brief submitted before the Court’s consideration of a petition for a writ of certiorari, motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ, may be filed if accompanied by the written consent of all parties, or if the Court grants leave to file under subparagraph 2(b) of this Rule.

    I don’t believe respondents including Barack Obama ever consented in writing to the filing of amicus curiae briefs and the Court’s consideration of petitions for writs of certiorari were denied in all 27 instances, including Berg v Obama.

  100. avatar
    Daniel December 15, 2016 at 4:54 pm #

    I just think it’s hilarious that CRJ still thinks he was a candidate.

    I wonder if he still thinks he’s the Prophet of the LDS Chrurch?

  101. avatar
    Joey December 15, 2016 at 5:19 pm #

    The current doctrine of locus standi (standing) is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will “imminently” be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

    The individuals who had standing to sue Barack Obama as being in violation of Article II, Section 1 were John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the only other individuals to garner Electoral votes and who were thus able to mert the standing requirement of being able to demonstrate particularized injury.

  102. avatar
    Cody Judy December 15, 2016 at 5:43 pm #

    Joey: The individuals who had standing to sue Barack Obama as being in violation of Article II, Section 1 were John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the only other individuals to garner Electoral votes and who were thus able to mert the standing requirement of being able to demonstrate particularized injury.

    [A major obstacle to most citizen suits has been lack of standing. In the initial wave of lawsuits challenging the validity of the 2008 presidential election, the only plaintiff who was a presidential candidate or presidential elector was Alan Keyes.]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation

    Anyone who is interested in updating Wiki can now do that with authority and documentation. Standing was NOT one of the reasons any of my actions were challenged and to their credit all my judges recognized this.

    STANDING
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
    The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
    The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling effects” doctrine.
    The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[1] Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney’s fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

    The reason is the exact same qualifications to run apply to me as any of the others you mentioned and those are in the Constitution. The damages could be as small as the gas it required you to go to the Court house and file in running for the Office of president.

    Daniel: I just think it’s hilarious that CRJ still thinks he was a candidate.

    Don’t really give a lot of credit to the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION do you?
    2016 & 2012
    http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=P20003372&tabIndex=3

    Last Entry 2008
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_candidates_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

    For the Benefit of those who don’t like small print I just copied these on to SCRIBD.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/334330694/Judy-v-McCain-Federal-District-Las-Vegas-Nevada

    https://www.scribd.com/document/334330634/Judy-v-McCain-Las-Vegas-Nevada-Emergency-Motion

  103. avatar
    Joey December 15, 2016 at 5:46 pm #

    Cody Judy:
    You might have the courtesy to ask rather than label which is contrary to the Blogs Guidelines? I may be wrong about Rickey where I thought he was licenced in a particular state to practise law.

    This would give him access to the Docket Report of Judy v. McCain and the specific entry made just before the Ending Ruling entitled with the words-

    [ Emergency Motion ]

    http://codyjudy.us/information/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_029.htm

    This covers questions about inheritance of father Kenya

    [Through extensive investigation, learned that
    Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Obama’s
    biological father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama’s
    mother a U.S. citizen who was not old enough to
    register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born”
    United States Citizen]

    This was a verification of Berg’s Lawsuit and findings of SCOTUS not to hear Cert due to standing, as well my own request of Amicus Curaie submitted as a Candidate for Pres with Standing.

    What I felt like this did was arm my Federal Judge with all the information and intelligence that there would be no excuse for not being at least Briefed on Obama and the tough situation of standing being regulated by the Court’s to fit only a Person who had actually won a Presidential Election for Standing to be satisfied because of the public implications of Election Interference made necessary by the lack of responsibility the Court’s laid or gave to Candidates who are ineligible.

    The burden was mine as a Candidate with Standing where the public, Representatives, Senators, Judges, had no standing.

    The definition of [ natural born Citizen ]( ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) was definitely represented in Judy v. McCain, and this must have been obvious to Rickey if he read the small print.

    Of course I’ve tried to keep my Web site up to consistently show my standing throughout 2008, 2012, and 2016.

    That is the reason you can read it at all without having to get a copy through the Legal Channels of Court Officials.

    Your welcome.I suppose complaining about the small print is better than no print as zooming is at least available.

    I know the SCOTUS Brief is not listed but it is there and I’ve deliberated many times on here and my own Blog SCOTUS is not obligated to print on their Docket as thoroughly as lower Courts having shown many entries I’ve sent in also not recorded in 12-5276 or 14-9396

    Now again, attorneys who are licenced to practise in particular in SCOTUSmay have privilege.

    Too bad that Cody Judy’s post office box had been closed out.
    Sept. 15, 2008 Mail Returned as “Box Closed, Unable to Forward, Return to Sender” re 6 Order Dismissing Case, addressed to Cody Robert Judy. NOT REMAILED. (SRK) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
    ORDER: Plaintiff’s 8 Motion to Reopen Case is Denied. All other outstanding 9 , 13 , and 16 Motions are Denied. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 01/07/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF – SRK) (Entered: 01/08/2009)

  104. avatar
    Rickey December 15, 2016 at 5:50 pm #

    Cody Judy:
    I may be wrong about Rickey where I thought he was licenced in a particular state to practise law.

    I have never claimed to be an attorney, although I know a lot more about the law and have more experience in the law than you.

    This covers questions about inheritance of father Kenya

    [Through extensive investigation, learned that
    Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Obama’s
    biological father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama’s
    mother a U.S. citizen who was not old enough to
    register Obama’s birth in Hawaii as a “natural born”
    United States Citizen]

    Once again you demonstrate that you do not comprehend the written word. Berg was not saying that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents. He was saying that if Obama was not born in the United States, his mother was not old enough to pass citizenship to him. Berg’s argument had nothing to do with your mythical “two-citizen parent” requirement.

    I know the SCOTUS Brief is not listed but it is there and I’ve deliberated many times on here and my own Blog SCOTUS is not obligated to print on their Docket as thoroughly as lower Courts having shown many entries I’ve sent in also not recorded in 12-5276 or 14-9396

    You may have mailed an Amicus Curiae to the Supreme Court in Berg’s case, but if you did it wasn’t docketed BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T FOLLOW THE RULES. You have to ask for permission from the parties to the case, you have to file a motion for leave to file the Amicus Curiae, and it has to be filed by an attorney who is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court. You obviously didn’t do any of those things.

  105. avatar
    bob December 15, 2016 at 7:05 pm #

    Cody Judy: Standing was NOT one of the reasons any of my actions were challenged and to their credit all my judges recognized this.

    The court didn’t need address standing: It was easy enough to bounce it for failing to state a case. Because it was frivolous.

    Don’t really give a lot of credit to the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION do you?

    Filing a declaration of candidacy does not necessarily make one a candidate.

    I know the SCOTUS Brief is not listed but it is there and I’ve deliberated many times on here and my own Blog SCOTUS is not obligated to print on their Docket as thoroughly as lower Courts having shown many entries I’ve sent in also not recorded in 12-5276 or 14-9396

    Because Judy’s mail was returned. Because SCOTUS never filed Judy’s documents.

  106. avatar
    Rickey December 15, 2016 at 11:42 pm #

    Cody Judy:

    Standing was NOT one of the reasons any of my actions were challenged and to their credit all my judges recognized this.

    Standing wasn’t an issue in your two Federal Court cases because neither case got that far.

    Judy v. McCain was dismissed five days after you filed it because you didn’t bother to inform the Court of your new address when your P.O. Box was closed. The dismissal notice was returned by the Post Office because you didn’t bother to file a forwarding address. The defendants never filed an Answer to your Complaint, which is when they would have raised the issue of standing. The only thing that the defendants filed was a response to your Motion to Reopen. Since your Motion to Reopen was denied, there was no need for the defendants or the Court to raise the issue of standing.

    Likewise, the defendants never filed an Answer in the Federal case Judy v. Obama, so once again the issue of standing was never raised. The District Court dismissed your lawsuit because it was frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. At that point there was no need for the Court to go any farther.

    That leaves us with the Georgia case Judy v. Obama, where standing was not an issue because it was filed in State Court. Standing is a Federal requirement. States are free to set their own standards.

    So your bragging about your cases not being dismissed for lack of standing is ludicrous.

  107. avatar
    Joey December 16, 2016 at 2:16 pm #

    Rickey, you may now remove your rhetorical foot from Cody Judy’s rhetorical anus.

  108. avatar
    Rickey December 16, 2016 at 4:10 pm #

    Joey:
    Rickey, you may now remove your rhetorical foot from Cody Judy’s rhetorical anus.

    The point has been made, although it won’t penetrate Judy’s skull.

    He has filed two Federal Court lawsuits, both of which he lost without the defendants having to file an Answer.

    He has filed two cert petitions with the Supreme Court and in both cases the respondents waived their right to respond.

    Judy’s state court case in Georgia was so weak that Obama’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski, didn’t even show up for the hearing. Judy and his fellow plaintiffs lost to an empty chair.

    And that, my friends, is the legal record which Cody Robert Judy is so proud of. But I suppose that he has to grab whatever straws he can, since his entire life apparently is bereft of any achievements.

  109. avatar
    Joey December 16, 2016 at 4:21 pm #

    Rickey: The point has been made, although it won’t penetrate Judy’s skull.

    He has filed two Federal Court lawsuits, both of which he lost without the defendants having to file an Answer.

    He has filed two cert petitions with the Supreme Court and in both cases the respondents waived their right to respond.

    Judy’s state court case in Georgia was so weak that Obama’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski, didn’t even show up for the hearing. Judy and his fellow plaintiffs lost to an empty chair.

    And that, my friends, is the legal record which Cody Robert Judy is so proud of. But I suppose that he has to grab whatever straws he can, since his entire life apparently is bereft of any achievements.

    Before Attorney Jablonsky opted out he had a copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate entered into evidence. Birther cult Attorney Orly Taitz threw a fit over that evidence and demanded “discovery” of Obama’s birth vital records, but of course Hawaii was not a party to the Georgia eligibility challenge.