Main Menu

Arpaio seeks to avoid federal contempt hearing

Admits wrongdoing

FLASH UDATE: APRIL HEARING IS STILL ON!

According the Arizona Republic web site, Judge Snow says the April contempt hearing is still on. A settlement is possible if plaintiffs agree to terms, but the judge wants Arpaio to admit in open court his wrongdoing, and to pay money out of his own pocket.

H/t to the Stephen Lemons and the Phoenix New Times Blog for this story that interested readers will want to get from that source.

In a few words: Arpaio was scheduled to face a 4-day civil contempt hearing in April in the Melendres v. Arpaio case. The court ordered remedies after finding that Arpaio and his department were engaging in racial profiling. Arpaio has not obeyed the Court’s orders. Seeking to avoid a hearing (what Lemons calls a “de facto trial”), Arpaio has filed papers with the court “consent[ing] to a finding of civil contempt.”

Also get the story from KPHO in Phoenix.

50

Apuzzo wakes!

Apparently I wasn’t the only one to notice the Harvard Law Review Forum article by two former US Solicitor Generals who write, in agreement with Senator Bayard’s book on the Constitution from 1833, that “natural born citizens” are those who are born citizens, in contrast to those who are naturalized. Mario Apuzzo, vocal advocate for the “two-citizen parent born in the country” definition, has a new copyrighted article at Birther Report™ taking issue with Neal Katyal and Paul Clement.

The title of my article stems from the long period of silence at Apuzzo’s blog and reflects the fact that I didn’t know that he had written something last month regarding the eligibility of Ted Cruz, a person born a US citizen in Canada.

To quote Apuzzo as he criticizes Katyal and Clement:

The author’s argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion.

Apuzzo’s main criticism is that the authors don’t follow Apuzzo’s sources or agree with him on what is important. Since there is nothing new in Apuzzo’s argument in general, there is nothing new to say about it.

I think that because the subject article appeared at the Harvard Law Review Forum, it’s intended readers are expected to be able to fill in from their own knowledge parts of the argument necessarily skipped to keep the article from being too long. Apuzzo’s papers on the topic run many pages.

59

New NBC commentary appears at Harvard Law Review

Image result for harvard law reviewNeal Katyal, former acting solicitor general for President Obama and Paul D. Clement, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, agree on one thing, Ted Cruz has what it takes to be president, at least Constitutionally speaking. What is a “natural born citizen” is the question they address in an article titled, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’” published yesterday (11 March, 2015) at the Harvard Law Review Forum.

image

They call “spurious” recent arguments that someone born a US citizen abroad, like Cruz, is ineligible. In their view:

…the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.

Their argument is based on the emphasis that the courts have given the English Common Low and those statutes enacted by the First Congress. They point to various English statutes from the 1700s that refer to the children of English subjects born overseas as “natural born” and to the phrasing of the US Naturalization Act of 1790 that states that those children born to US parents (under most conditions) are natural born citizens.

I might quibble with some of the emphasis in this short piece, but I wholeheartedly agree with this:

The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better.

WND blocks Doc from debunking nutty article

Lord Monckton is back at WorldNetDaily with a classic example of he blind leading the blind in a rehash of a similar story from 2012. I’d like to refute the nonsense there, but WND banned me a while back.

image

The comment I couldn’t post (from the preceding image) says:

With all due respect, Monckton doesn’t have a clue what real scanning and PDF generation software does. He relies on what he is told, and the people telling him aren’t qualified. It is the blind leading the blind. The paper largely relies on the false claim that normal PDF generation software does not create multiple one-bit non-black layers. Well it does. Ask any Xerox WorkCenter 7655 machine.

This is in response to a central theme in the Monckton report (repeating over and over “I am told”) that says, among other things:

Monckton: "I am told that no optimization software generates any non-black layers of 1-bit quality, yet all of the 1-bit-quality layers in the White House document are non-black" and "Multiple layers of 1-bit quality each representing a distinct color other than black can only be created by an operator deliberately."

As readers here know, the Xerox WorkCentre 7655 that the White House owns automatically does exactly what Monckton was told optimization software can not do.

Then Monckton goes on to do some math which is both wrong, and inappropriate:

Multiple layers of 1-bit quality, no 1-bit-quality layer represents black and one 8-bit-quality color layer: 1 in 60 (combined)
Registrar’s signature-stamp on its own layer: 1 in 100 (actually impossible)
Registrar’s date-stamp on its own layer: 1 in 100 (actually impossible)
Line spacing irregularities: 1 in 10
Letter spacing irregularities: 1 in 20
White halo effect around black text: 1 in 10
Chromatic aberration absent: 1 in 100 (actually impossible)
Certificate number out of sequence: 1 in 25
Father’s birth date two years out: 1 in 40
Use of “African” against written rules: 1 in 25
Miscoding of federal statistical data: 1 in 25
Probability that all errors were inadvertent: 1 in 75 quadrillion

First, let’s correct the mistakes:

Multiple layers of 1-bit quality, no 1-bit-quality layer represents black and one 8-bit-quality color layer: Normal for Xerox machine
Registrar’s signature-stamp on its own layer: Always happens with Xerox
Registrar’s date-stamp on its own layer: Always happens with Xerox
Line spacing irregularities: Why is this unusual?
Letter spacing irregularities: Why is this unusual?
White halo effect around black text: Always happens with Xerox
Chromatic aberration absent: Normal for Xerox
Certificate number out of sequence: Not out of sequence
Father’s birth date two years out: Matches other documents
Use of “African” against written rules: No such rule
Miscoding of federal statistical data: No such code applicable

The a priori statistical fallacy involved (reference, see Note 4) is to conclude that something that that has already happened is improbable. He might just as well have argued that the name Barack is very unusual, and the name Obama is also unusual, and that only a relatively small number of babies were born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, and then conclude that someone named “Barack Obama” being born on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii was very unlikely.

Sibley’s “Grand Jury Kit”

Scrounging for something to write about lead me to Montgomery Blair Sibley’s blog, and a February 27th article titled, “Request for Grand Jury Investigation into the Legitimacy of Obama’s Identity Documents.” In the brief article, Sibley says that he is done with the courts on this topic; however, he refers to his Open Letter, and in that letter he urges readers to download a 32-page document, print it in color, and send it to “your local county Grand Jury.” I guess we will have to add Sibley’s “Grand Jury Kit” to Mike Volin’s Sheriff’s kit.

The document itself (apparently from Douglas Vogt and Paul Irey) is mostly about typewriting, expressing the opinions of people who are not a qualified experts on the subject, based on no recognized methodology. Certainly Vogt, who is in the scanner business, ought to know that some scanners crate halos. In essence the grand jury document argues that ignorance on the writers’ part implies forgery on Obama’s part.

DARPA @ BR

I just ran a query with Google to see if perhaps the birthers have found the secret DARPA web site. It appears not. Maybe they don’t know about .onion sites. Nevertheless, while looking at the search results I found:

  • The other explanation is the JPG format was developed by DARPA to mask image modifications in order to support the big gun grab only to have it revealed by a random guy who doesn’t know the first thing about digital image processing. – charles_w
  • Those working in DARPA and other government agencies that have been posting for years running interference for Obama on the web, think they are anonymous. Faggy is chump change and a wannabe. – William
  • DARPA, Apparently worried….. They know that WE know, and so will the rest of the world. It’s not a matter of IF, its only a matter of When…. And that when is now. – William
  • I got DarpaMonitor_52 on my six… – charlesmountain
  • Butterdezillion computer hit by DARPA in the last few minutes – on / off / on / off. Five times. – Falcon
  • So far, DARPA hasn’t impressed me with their subtlety. – SirenDrake
  • DARPA is using BirtherReport as a Quick Reference Guide — to find material DARPA wishes to scrub (remove) from the Web.I don’t know if DARPA attacks sites manually or automatically, but whatever they’re doing, it’s getting material removed……. in less than 30 minutes. – Barry Soetoro, ESQ
  • In late 2013 following more than two years of investigation into the birth certificate image, Zullo revealed that several “Obots” are employed by DARPA1, a division of the Department of Defense.  DARPA works in the areas of psychological warfare and robotics. – Birther Report article, Feb. 2015
  • Just because I question those who have this undying faith in Sheriff Arpaio, does not make me a Darpa. – Mike
  • It’s time we file a complaint with DARPA Customer Service. Their Obots: ScottKB; Dr Cornhole; Foggy Fogbow……… are of the lowest quality, fooling nobody. – Barry Soetoro, ESQ
  • B/c DARPA invested 6 months into building screen ID ScottKB. And they’re sore losers. And they’re still bitter we outed him, causing him to flee this forum. And DARPA thinks it can rehabilitate that screen name. – Barry Soetoro, ESQ
  • Another day nearly gone and AKA Obama and his DARPA-enhanced criminal regime are still not indicted for crimes against the citizens of the U.S.A. – Hoosier_Daddy
  • LOL – I was right, DARPA does have a brain scrambling machine. – Falcon
  • While I’m not surprised that agencies of the Regime (eg DARPA) would resort to traditional National Socialist methods, I’m surprised they’re so obvious and clumsy on a public forum. – Barry Soetoro, ESQ
  • DARPA operatives will be exposed and, where appropriate, prosecuted under US law.– Barry Soetoro, ESQ
  • Yeah we get it, everyone except you [BSE} and Falcon is DARPA. – LogicalPatriot

Those selected from  list of 812.


1This is another example of birthers hearing Zullo say something that he didn’t say. Zullo traced something to organizations that had DARPA contracts, not to DARPA employees.