The occasional open thread: keeping your story straight

Posted on October 5, 2015 by Dr. Conspiracy

Put your Obama conspiracy comments that don’t relate to the current articles here. This thread will close in two weeks.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Open Mike and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

266 Responses to The occasional open thread: keeping your story straight

  1. RanTalbott says:
    October 5, 2015 at 8:27 am  (Quote)

    I think this one has QOTD potential. charlesmountain responding to a post by Reagans_Ghost asking how to get the word out better. (Links to comments don’t seem to work when the comment count gets above 100 and the software collapses threads, so search for “Mossad” on this posting to find it).

    Imagine if you dropped 10,000 Sheriff Kits from a major office building in a couple of large cities all over the country, or something to that effect…and then again…and again. That would grab the media’s attention.

    Yes, Chuckles, I believe raining tens of thousands of DVDs on the heads of unsuspecting pedestrians would grab lots of attention. And not just from the media: hotels in the area would put up plaques in your honor to commemorate being overbooked by every ambulance chaser in the state…

  2. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 5, 2015 at 9:00 am  (Quote)

    Agreed.

    RanTalbott: I think this one has QOTD potential.

  3. Keith says:
    October 5, 2015 at 9:05 am  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: And not just from the media: hotels in the area would put up plaques in your honor to commemorate being overbooked by every ambulance chaser in the state…

    Not to mention the suppliers to the police for all the littering tickets that would be issued.

  4. bob says:
    October 5, 2015 at 10:00 am  (Quote)

    SCOTUS denied Judy’s reconsideration motion. But the order list is otherwise silent. We’ve have to wait for the docket to update to see when the other shoe will fall, i.e., did it dismiss the cert. petition or give him some more time to attempt to comply.

  5. Reality Check says:
    October 5, 2015 at 10:33 am  (Quote)

    The only thing before the Court was Judy’s motion to reconsider their denial of his motion to file IFP. His case is dead. I assume he could fork over the filing fee and printing costs to refile but he will never do that. (Unless it’s with other people’s money.)

  6. Rickey says:
    October 5, 2015 at 10:37 am  (Quote)

    bob:
    SCOTUS denied Judy’s reconsideration motion. But the order list is otherwise silent. We’ve have to wait for the docket to update to see when the other shoe will fall, i.e., did it dismiss the cert. petition or give him some more time to attempt to comply.

    I don’t believe that they are going to give him any more time. My understanding is that the cert petition will now be automatically dismissed, but we shall see.

  7. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 5, 2015 at 10:44 am  (Quote)

    I don’t think he can do this. The motion for extension of time was already denied. The clock has run out.

    Reality Check: I assume he could fork over the filing fee and printing costs to refile but he will never do that. (Unless it’s with other people’s money.)

  8. bob says:
    October 5, 2015 at 11:09 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t think he can do this. The motion for extension of time was already denied. The clock has run out.

    I agree the clock has run out. At this point, I think it is just an administrative matter to enforce the prior order to dismiss the petition, and then close out the file.

  9. Pete says:
    October 5, 2015 at 11:11 am  (Quote)

    He’s dead, Jim.

    Of course he was dead to start with, so…

    No real change here!

  10. Jim says:
    October 5, 2015 at 11:15 am  (Quote)

    Pete:
    He’s dead, Jim.

    Thanks for letting me know.

  11. Reality Check says:
    October 5, 2015 at 11:21 am  (Quote)

    I agree.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I don’t think he can do this. The motion for extension of time was already denied. The clock has run out.

  12. Pete says:
    October 5, 2015 at 11:54 am  (Quote)

    Jim: Thanks for letting me know.

    Glad to keep you in the loop!

  13. bob says:
    October 5, 2015 at 1:42 pm  (Quote)

    Judy on Teh Facebook:

    U.S. SUPREME COURT refuses to grant informa pauperis status in Judy v. Obama14-9396 in spite of verified bank statements. Dark Day in “Justice for All”

    Judy says SCOTUS took the “cheep” route. So that Judy’s angle: He’ll continue to insist he was correct, but only the rich have access to justice.

  14. Pete says:
    October 5, 2015 at 1:55 pm  (Quote)

    An excuse is a very handy thing when you have a completely meritless and incoherent case.

  15. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    October 5, 2015 at 2:03 pm  (Quote)

    I do so love watching cranks geting their hopes dashed.

  16. Reality Check says:
    October 5, 2015 at 2:46 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, Judy sure beat this poor horse to death. The beast was dead in the starting gate.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    I do so love watching cranks geting their hopes dashed.

  17. Rickey says:
    October 5, 2015 at 2:49 pm  (Quote)

    It turns out that CRJ was correct about one thing. His request for IFP status was not denied pursuant to rule 39.8.

    I found several SCOTUS cases in which IFP status was denied last spring, and in most of them the docket entry for the denial cites rule 39.8. SCOTUS did not cite 39.8 in CRJ’s denial, so there had to be another reason. It may have been denied because his cert petition was indecipherable rather then frivolous.

    However, my guess is that he didn’t follow the rules, which are spelled out here:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/casehand/guideforifpcases2014.pdf

    His motion for reconsideration was a mess. Instead of focusing on his income and expenses, he spent most of the motion slamming SCOTUS for being unfair to him. Citing Birther Report and the Pest & E-mail probably didn’t help, either.

  18. Pete says:
    October 5, 2015 at 3:13 pm  (Quote)

    Here’s a retrospective great quote from an earlier article by the Doc on Judy’s case:

    The Tenth Circuit concurred [with the Utah District]:

    For substantially the same reasons stated by the district court, we also conclude that the complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim for relief under § 1915(e)(2).

    I found a copy of Judy’s Supreme Court appeal but it is too tangled to understand, so I cannot in all good conscience say that it is frivolous. Here’s a more or less randomly-selected sentence:

    In the absence of enforcement of the law of course a precedent is shaped and formed but this one seeking to altar the constitution by attrition uses a scholastic bully format irrespective of the People who elect Leaders to Congress, and have already denied eight times the mixing of terms in a dilution of the national security interest of natural born Citizen into Citizen.

    I thought that was hilarious.

  19. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    October 5, 2015 at 3:47 pm  (Quote)

    Now, here’s $64,000 question: Will CRJ take his whooping like a man, and move on to greener pastures? Personally, I think he’ll just engage in another round of “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

  20. bob says:
    October 5, 2015 at 3:55 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Now, here’s $64,000 question: Will CRJ take his whooping like a man, and move on to greener pastures? Personally, I think he’ll just engage in another round of “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

    If the past is prologue, Judy will crow about how long his case pended, as if that’s meaningful. And then whine only the rich get justice.

    He’ll continue to birf, and he’ll continue to think he’s a candidate because he filled out a form.

  21. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    October 5, 2015 at 4:12 pm  (Quote)

    This late in the game, I can only figure out why any birthers are still birthering, is because they’ve invested so much of themselves into it, for so long. You’ve got birthers, like Bruce Steadman, who has wasted lots of his own money. You’ve got birthers who have ruined relationships with family and friends. You’ve got birthers who have ruined their careers, and ended up in prison. Yet none of them are willing to give it up. I think it’s because they need something, anything, that makes them feel some degree of vindication. Anything that will make all of their self-induced misery and debt seem worth it.

    …And it warms to cockles of my heart to know that they’ll never feel that vindication. :3

  22. Rickey says:
    October 5, 2015 at 4:50 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Now, here’s $64,000 question: Will CRJ take his whooping like a man, and move on to greener pastures? Personally, I think he’ll just engage in another round of “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

    If he invested as much time and effort in finding a decent job as he has in his quixotic attempts to bring down President Obama, he might be able to carve out a reasonably satisfying life for himself.

    Nah, I’m just kidding. He has serious personality issues which prevent him from learning from his mistakes. He also has a persecution complex – he was unjustly imprisoned, it wasn’t his fault that he violated a protective order, and now SCOTUS is being unfair to him. He needs to learn to take responsibility for his own failures, but I doubt that he ever will.

  23. Pete says:
    October 5, 2015 at 5:18 pm  (Quote)

    U.S. SUPREME COURT
    Chooses cheep way out of Judy v. Obama 14-9396 Denies hearing “the poors petition.”
    “I suppose this will go to all of America for Failing to help when it was needed. It is rather sad Justice however, that only the rich qualify.”, said 2016 D Pres. Candidate Cody Robert Judy.

    U.S. SUPREME COURT refuses to grant informa pauperis status in Judy v. Obama14-9396 in spite of verified bank statements. Dark Day in “Justice for All”

    Reposted for those of us who just loooooove the sweet taste of birfer tears. Yum!!

  24. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    October 5, 2015 at 6:00 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: Reposted for those of us who just loooooove the sweet taste of birfer tears. Yum!!

    Indeed, but sadly they’re not worth much, seeing as the market has become more over-saturated, with each passing day that President Obama stays in office.

  25. bob says:
    October 5, 2015 at 6:04 pm  (Quote)

    Judy on teh Twitter:

    #mediawatch pray #media will understnd grave #INJUSTICE perpetrated on our COTUS w silence of Case @politico @GMA

    Yes, I’m sure the media will be allow over SCOTUS killing a frivolous birther suit.

  26. gorefan says:
    October 5, 2015 at 6:33 pm  (Quote)

    bob:
    Judy on teh Twitter:

    Yes, I’m sure the media will be allow over SCOTUS killing a frivolous birther suit.

    Why in his image has he highlighted 14-9330 Snipes, Leon v. Illinois?

    Is that the case of injustice to which he is referring?

  27. Keith says:
    October 5, 2015 at 6:34 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: I found a copy of Judy’s Supreme Court appeal but it is too tangled to understand, so I cannot in all good conscience say that it is frivolous. Here’s a more or less randomly-selected sentence:

    That absolutely reads like a text obsfucator I played with back in Uni. 1972. You feed it a relatively simple sentence and it screws it up my substituting more and more obscure words and phrases.

    You really got fun stuff when the input sentence didn’t make any sense in the first place.

  28. Pete says:
    October 5, 2015 at 7:14 pm  (Quote)

    Yo ah couldn’t find any decent werds n s*** obfuscation algorithms, but ah did find uh couple o’ cracker *ss english ta ebonix translators an don’t make me pull mah gat.

    Yo So ah’m going ta try running Cody’s sentence true dat.

    Here we’s go.

    In da absence o’ enforcement o’ da law o’ course uh precedent iz shaped an’ formed but dis here one seeking ta altar da constitution by attrition uses uh scholastic bully format irrespective o’ da n****s who elect Leaders ta Congress, an’ gots already denied eight times da mixin’ o’ terrums in uh dilution o’ da nashnel securrity interest o’ nachrel borned Citizen into Citizen what the **** sup now?

  30. Pete says:
    October 5, 2015 at 9:17 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Obama and Mars recapped:
    https://www.inverse.com/article/6741-remembering-that-time-teenage-barack-obama-went-to-mars

    Is it telling that I looked at the name of this article’s author – Neel V. Patel – and for a split second thought it was a reference to a court case?

  31. Rickey says:
    October 5, 2015 at 9:30 pm  (Quote)

    Judy claims that his case proves that only the rich get justice, yet today’s orders show that SCOTUS granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis to 11 petitioners, and in 9 of those cases the Court also granted cert.

  32. bgansel9 says:
    October 5, 2015 at 10:59 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey:
    Judy claims that his case proves that only the rich get justice, yet today’s orders show that SCOTUS granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis to 11 petitioners, and in 9 of those cases the Court also granted cert.

    I hope he notices. Then the only conclusion can be that he’s nuts.

  33. Pete says:
    October 5, 2015 at 11:15 pm  (Quote)

    bgansel9: be

    Someone could point it out to him.

    But the conclusion then would be that (of course) Obama has bought or threatened the Court.

  34. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 5, 2015 at 11:51 pm  (Quote)

    I think it helps.

    Pete: Yo So ah’m going ta try running Cody’s sentence true dat.

  35. John Reilly says:
    October 6, 2015 at 12:50 am  (Quote)

    bgansel9: I hope he notices. Then the only conclusion can be that he’s nuts.

    Nope. The only conclusion I draw is that Mr. Judy is a convicted felon who threatened to blow up a roomful of people.

  36. Notorial Dissent says:
    October 6, 2015 at 1:28 am  (Quote)

    I don’t think that qualifies as a conclusion, fact YES!!! Thoroughly proven and incontrovertible.

    bgansel9: I hope he notices. Then the only conclusion can be that he’s nuts.

  37. Pete says:
    October 6, 2015 at 1:57 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think it helps.

    Lol. I think it does, actually.

  38. Keith says:
    October 6, 2015 at 2:04 am  (Quote)

    Pete: Yo ah couldn’t find any decent werds n s*** obfuscation algorithms, but ah did find uh couple o’ cracker *ss english ta ebonix translators an don’t make me pull mah gat.

    The one I used was an experiment for SNOBOL on the CDC 6400.

  39. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    October 6, 2015 at 4:15 am  (Quote)

    Keith: That absolutely reads like a text obsfucator I played with back in Uni. 1972. You feed it a relatively simple sentence and it screws it up my substituting more and more obscure words and phrases.

    You really got fun stuff when the input sentence didn’t make any sense in the first place.

    I love to play that game with Google Translate – start with an English sentence A(0), have it translated into another language A(1), then back to English A(2). Rinse and repeat. At around A(8) to A(10), you will have reached hilarious results (depending on the other language used; you can also use a different foreign language for each round).

  40. Keith says:
    October 6, 2015 at 4:46 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M (not logged in): I love to play that game with Google Translate – start with an English sentence A(0), have it translated into another language A(1), then back to English A(2). Rinse and repeat. At around A(8) to A(10), you will have reached hilarious results (depending on the other language used; you can also use a different foreign language for each round).

    I’ve done that, man!!!! 😎

    You take a perfectly good English text specimen, translate it to Japanese, and back to English and Hey! Presto! you’ve got the owners manual for a Diahatsu Charade.

  41. RanTalbott says:
    October 6, 2015 at 5:24 am  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Yet none of them are willing to give it up.

    Some of the more prominent ones have, at least partially: Berg, Apuzzo, Klayman and Taitz have mostly moved on to other windmills, with only an occasional look back (but not even a lifting of the lance, much less a charge) at the birther one.

    A few who were benefitting financially from milking the birthers, like BR, Rondeau, and (until The Recent Unpleasantness™) A/Z have kept going strong. But others have gone dark (or, at least, “too dim to notice”). E.g., has butterdezillion come up with anything since her Fuddy follies over a year ago? Denninger? Zebest? Renshaw? Irey popped his pointy head up again recently, but Vogt doesn’t seem to be with him in his latest silliness.

    I know some of the “rank-and-file” birfoons I used to smack down regularly on various message boards have slithered away. They might, or might not, still be believers, but they’re definitely no longer outspoken zealots. The views counters on BR’s Youtube channels suggest that many others have dropped out, too.

    I suspect that, even among the hard-core, more have given up than not.

  42. RanTalbott says:
    October 6, 2015 at 5:46 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M (not logged in): At around A(8) to A(10), you will have reached hilarious results

    Sometimes, you can get hilarious results at A(1): a birfoon once tried to fake a knowledge of Latin while discussing legal terminology. While mine has gotten pretty rusty since I studied it in school back in 19(cough, cough), what he wrote looked wrong. Sure enough, I discovered that Google Translate, when translating into Latin, will just drop the English word into the translation if it can’t find a Latin equivalent. So “We have cheesecake” comes out as “Habemus cheesecake”. And he happened to have used a word borrowed from Greek that had a Latin equivalent, but wasn’t common enough to make its English dictionary. Oops.

  43. Lupin says:
    October 6, 2015 at 6:09 am  (Quote)

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/understanding-the-countrys-choice-on-guns

    Yet another remarkable example of how the US Right lost its marbles and sh*t in its pants when a n**** was elected to the WH.

  44. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    October 6, 2015 at 7:06 am  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: a birfoon once tried to fake a knowledge of Latin

    Cum grano salis, lex iuvit curia, ipso facto per se. 😉

    Don’t remind me of all the “informa pauperis” (CRJ) ridiculousness or the many butcheries of “prima facie“.

    In my local dialect there’s a funny fake Latin saying: “Situs vi late inis et avenit”, differently spaced yielding “Sit us vi Latein is et ave(r) nit” which is local dialect for “Sieht aus wie Latein, ist es aber nicht” (“Looks like Latin but isn’t”). 😉

  45. Dave B. says:
    October 6, 2015 at 9:54 am  (Quote)

    Apuzzo’s birfering as much as ever in the only place that matters, the internet.

    http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_b67b4cb0-6a2a-11e5-9486-e74b5e0bc434.html

    RanTalbott: Berg, Apuzzo, Klayman and Taitz have mostly moved on to other windmills, with only an occasional look back (but not even a lifting of the lance, much less a charge) at the birther one.

  46. Rickey says:
    October 6, 2015 at 10:07 am  (Quote)

    Pete: Someone could point it out to him.

    But the conclusion then would be that (of course) Obama has bought or threatened the Court.

    Of course.

    Incidentally, at least two of the petitioners who were granted cert and in forma pauperis status yesterday are pro se petitioners, so it is possible to get that far without an attorney. Now attorneys are probably lining up to take those cases pro bono.

  47. bob says:
    October 6, 2015 at 12:21 pm  (Quote)

    Judy on The Facebook:

    Just got off the phone with SCOTUS Clerk. Referred up the COURT-Clerk-chain-of-Command to [the Deputy Clerk for Case Initiation] explaining the insane decision to deny someone under the poverty level access to the SCOTUS.

    Explained the equivalent justice upon Mr. Trump at 1/5th his income to proceed would be the Court charging him approx 3 Billion dollars to file a Cert.

    This shows people just a Real disconnect with Justice that our Country is faced with that qualifies as criminal against the impoverished, disinfranchised, and downtrodden.

    This substantiated really the worst case scenarios with minority cultures invested in retribution with Sotomayor’s denial even for more time in the case, and Obama’s lash against the poor voice an opposition to his infractious stands against the Constitution.

    94 million out of the work force, and doubling the amount on food stamps during his tenure , he is the worst thing ever to happen to minorities. . and Justice Sotomayor is a complete embarrassment to Equality and Justice in the U.S. Supreme Court.

    It’s very possible with this type of pattern Hillary Clinton could be the very worst scenario for women as a President.

    Culturally it’s strange bedfellows, but those you would think we’re allies to Justice and Equality show themselves the worst kinds of enemies.

    The cruelty exhibited by these facts warrant “impeachment for bad behavior”

  48. Pete says:
    October 6, 2015 at 12:47 pm  (Quote)

    Well, that’s sort of rambling.

    How much in fees are we talking about here, anyway?

  49. bob says:
    October 6, 2015 at 12:51 pm  (Quote)

    Pete:

    How much in fees are we talking about here, anyway?

    In 2011, the filing fee was $300.

    The real issue is the costs associated with filing rule-compliant briefs; that will be at least $2000.

  50. Pete says:
    October 6, 2015 at 12:55 pm  (Quote)

    A brief search didn’t quite find the information I was looking for, but did turn up this nugget:

    If satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari, jurisdictional statement, or petition for an extraordinary writ is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

    Gee, I wonder if that’s relevant to Cody’s case?

  51. Pete says:
    October 6, 2015 at 12:58 pm  (Quote)

    bob: The real issue is the costs associated with filing rule-compliant briefs; that will be at least $2000.

    So we’re talking a couple thousand bucks here. Maybe $3000?

    Seems to me that someone who had a real and compelling case could find a way to come up with that.

    Of course, in Cody’s case, the money would be much better spent on something else.

  52. Northland10 says:
    October 6, 2015 at 1:33 pm  (Quote)

    Pete:
    A brief search didn’t quite find the information I was looking for, but did turn up this nugget:

    Gee, I wonder if that’s relevant to Cody’s case?

    Ricky had noticed that in other IFP denials, they actually mentioned rule 39.8. They did not in Judy’s case, however, the result in this case would has been similar to invoking the rule in the denial. The intent is often to prevent the tax payer from having to pay for frivolous cases.

    He ignores the fact that the trial court, sua sponte, denied his case as frivolous and the 10th circuit affirmed for the same reason. There is no reason why SCOTUS woud accept it any differently.

    There would be the matter that he failed to follow the rules in his IFP petition, and filled it with his normal word salad. This would be another place they could easily deny. The court does not spend its time trying to figure out what the petitioner is trying to say.

  53. Notorial Dissent says:
    October 6, 2015 at 1:43 pm  (Quote)

    I’d go with frivolous, like all the preceding courts have.

    Remember, this is the man who thinks/believes the court is going to hold hearings about his nonsense rather than ruling on whether he was properly round filed at the appellate and DC level. Clueless doesn’t even come close to describing him.

    Pete:
    A brief search didn’t quite find the information I was looking for, but did turn up this nugget:

    Gee, I wonder if that’s relevant to Cody’s case?

  54. Pete says:
    October 6, 2015 at 4:17 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10: He ignores the fact that the trial court, sua sponte, denied his case as frivolous and the 10th circuit affirmed for the same reason. There is no reason why SCOTUS woud accept it any differently.

    Birthers file all this stuff that is just unbelievable crap (in both form AND substance), and then never believe themselves to have filed frivolous cases.

    To real people, it’s downright hilarious. But birthers don’t understand the joke, because they are the joke.

  55. Rickey says:
    October 6, 2015 at 11:50 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10: Ricky had noticed that in other IFP denials, they actually mentioned rule 39.8.They did not in Judy’s case, however, the result in this case would has been similar to invoking the rule in the denial.The intent is often to prevent the tax payer from having to pay for frivolous cases.

    He ignores the fact that the trial court, sua sponte, denied his case as frivolous and the 10th circuit affirmed for the same reason.There is no reason why SCOTUS woud accept it any differently.

    There would be the matter that he failed to follow the rules in his IFP petition, and filled it with his normal word salad.This would be another place they could easily deny.The court does not spend its time trying to figure out what the petitioner is trying to say.

    Since SCOTUS didn’t mention Rule 39.8 in CRJ’s denial, I believe that his motion for IFP was denied for a different reason. My guess is that he screwed up his motion by failing to provide all of the financial information which is called for in the rules. Of course, I don’t know this for certain because I haven’t seen his original motion for IFP, He was supposed to provide a list of all of his income and expenses, his assets and liabilities, his employment history, etc. He didn’t address any of that information in his motion for reconsideration, which leads me to believe that he never provided it in the first place. The only records which he submitted with his motion for reconsideration were a couple of bank statements.

    The SCOTUS clerks don’t do any more work on a case than is necessary. If CRJ submitted a deficient motion for IFP, there would be no reason to even read his cert petition.

  56. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 7, 2015 at 12:36 am  (Quote)

    Sorry about the outage. The hosting company broke something, and then fixed it.

  57. Bonsall Obot says:
    October 7, 2015 at 10:47 am  (Quote)

    After a flurry of activity relating to Trump and to Zullo and to Arpaio, john seems to have gone silent again. I suspect his mom may have cracked down on his computer privileges until he shows real signs of looking for a job (FOR REAL THIS TIME, JOHN.)

  58. Pete says:
    October 7, 2015 at 11:30 am  (Quote)

    No, no.

    I think the reason john has gone silent is because he’s FOUND a job, advising Mr. Zullo.

    Where do you think that ticket to Venezuela came from?

  59. bgansel9 says:
    October 7, 2015 at 11:59 am  (Quote)

    bob:
    Judy on The Facebook:

    Wait, what? Judy expects that the Supreme Court MUST take his case because he’s not rich? Says who?

  60. Reality Check says:
    October 7, 2015 at 12:03 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, if Judy had a real case he could find a real attorney with real money backing him to take it up. Judy is universally recognized as an insignificant crank and his case is rambling nonsense.

    Pete: Seems to me that someone who had a real and compelling case could find a way to come up with that.

  61. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    October 7, 2015 at 12:07 pm  (Quote)

    Judy hasn’t updated his blog to reflect this latest development. I’m guessing its because he’s run out of ways to spin losses into wins.

  62. Notorial Dissent says:
    October 7, 2015 at 12:19 pm  (Quote)

    You mean rambling frivolous nonsense don’t you? That’s what the prior two courts concluded, all on their own.

    I like the insignificant crank part, really really insignificant when it comes right down to it.

    Reality Check:
    Yes, if Judy had a real case he could find a real attorney with real money backing him to take it up. Judy is universally recognized as an insignificant crank and his case is rambling nonsense.

  63. bob says:
    October 7, 2015 at 12:53 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Judy hasn’t updated his blog to reflect this latest development. I’m guessing its because he’s run out of ways to spin losses into wins.

    True, but Judy is whining on Facebook and Twitter. And the vaunted Post & Email has run two articles (behind its paywall) about his latest fail.

  64. Nightflyer says:
    October 7, 2015 at 1:29 pm  (Quote)

    bob:
    Judy on The Facebook:

    Notice he doesn’t tell how the chat with the SCOTUS clerk went and came out. Doubtless the clerk’s response was something along the lines of:

    “Don’t bother us again or we’ll have you charged with harassment, you fool!”

  65. Pete says:
    October 7, 2015 at 1:53 pm  (Quote)

    Notorial Dissent: Judy is universally recognized as an insignificant crank and his case is rambling nonsense.

    I take a bit of issue with this. It’s fine to say that Judy is universally recognized as an insignificant crank, but only if you specify that the microscopic “universe” of people who recognize his name AT ALL is vanishingly small.

    He is no more significant than the hobo on the street corner holding a sign that says, “God bless.” Judy may have filed a piece of paper declaring he’s running for President, and filed a hopeless case with the US Supreme Court. So what? The hobo has a cousin whose father-in-law once sat at the same table at a fund raiser with Martin Sheen.

  66. Pete says:
    October 7, 2015 at 3:42 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: He is no more significant than the hobo on the street corner holding a sign that says, “God bless.”

    At least, when it comes to his birfing and “Presidential” activities.

    Hopefully he’s done other things in his life that have some significance.

  67. bgansel9 says:
    October 7, 2015 at 8:15 pm  (Quote)

    Just for the record, I’ve never seen moths flock to a lightsaber.

    I take that to mean conspiracy theories don’t “flock to Barack Obama” at all. Instead, they seem to flock to the brains of conspiracy theorists.

    😛

  68. Dave says:
    October 7, 2015 at 8:48 pm  (Quote)

    Just ran into this: BREAKING NEWS – GOP QUESTIONS RUBIO’S ELIGIBILITY TO RUN….

    This blog article cites no source, and states briefly that the GOP is investigating Rubio’s eligibility after getting a petition to that effect with 30,000 signatures. A bit of googling turns up no mention of this elsewhere, so I have no idea what the blogger is talking about.

    This blog, which calls itself The Marshall Report, is new to me. It makes only occasional birther comments about Obama, but is often ranting about the imagined ineligibility of Rubio, in between lots of other standard-issue wingnuttery.

    Edit: I should’ve given a hat tip to a BR comment. And now I see this has turned into a BR post. BR also notes that the article gives zero information about this petition.

  69. Bonsall Obot says:
    October 7, 2015 at 10:44 pm  (Quote)

    Lots of stupid in the comments over there, including Nash and Mario. Really quite the disingenuous batch of dingleberries squabbling over multiple wrong NBC definitions.

    And this is the first I’ve heard of this Dianne Marshall kook, but I’d bet cash money she gets a check from the Trump organization.

  70. Pete says:
    October 7, 2015 at 10:57 pm  (Quote)

    The internet is the democratization of stupid.

  71. Notorial Dissent says:
    October 8, 2015 at 2:26 am  (Quote)

    I have to agree with Pete, I should have qualified my statement to say within the handful of us who even know who he is only because we keep track of these nuts. Otherwise he is such an inconsequentiality that he is a total unknown.

  72. CRJ says:
    October 8, 2015 at 12:12 pm  (Quote)

    To answer Q- The IFP MOTION was filled out completely. Its quite detailed asking questions you simply answer in their detailed format.

    How many miles on your car?
    How much do you spend at the laundry mat?
    How much is your clothing allowance?
    How much do you spend on food, housing, utilities?
    Do you own any property
    Etc etc..

    Of course it has remained “sealed” and please don’t forget it was considered “granted” by the District Court (Utah) Division; the 10th Circuit received the same copy cosidering the Case de Novo.

    The Question really not being considered here is; “Why under the same calender year does the District Court and 10th Circuit grant the waiver, (their fees being lower in understood expectations of printing cost), whilst the SCOTUS denied it?

    The Form is the same for all 3 Court’s

    Now, pardon my intelligence being considered at the bottom feeder level compared to the genius of wisdom found within the great counsels here, but it just doesn’t make sense and you yourselves are trying to make sense of it.

    Of course I am the weak link you poke at to grasp and rationalize. . but you keep forgetting 2 Court’s rationale granting the IFP Status, 3 if you’d like to consider the SCOTUS in 12-5276 accepting my IFP Status before denying cert.

    Has anyone heard of the Court’s Level of accepting IFP Status lowering whilst everything got more expensive and you earned less? I haven’t found the memo but one of record exist- ie. Pharaoh of Egypt took away the straw and kept the tally of bricks the same seeking his own miracle.

    We are left assuming a conspiracy in the “fault of process” or a “fraud within the SCOTUS house”.

    Of course none of you would want to be the victim of such would you?

    Here we see how far out in the extreme you are willing to contrive your own logic. I picture you as fisherman inching further and further out in the mud of a receding tide, casting your lines with all your might for the ocean that continues to hide from your cast. The fishing isn’t good there in shallow hallow.

    Finally you were willing to at least acknowledge Rule 38.9 (or 39.8 whichever it is) was not attached to my denial. That is something.

    Of course no mention in your logistics of 3 cases granting IFP Status I’ve mentioned .. You continue creeping out in the mud bog. This is the maintenance of your cluttering the natural born Citizen clause also.

    It should not exist, and really doesn’t exist in your worlds.. Are you BIRTHERS of Cruz, Rubio, or Jindal.. McCain.. Or just apposed to Obama being considered constitutionally unqualified because of some advantage he has (? ).

    Tis your excercise to contribute here with disparaging comments of curriosity as to why so many have given so much in an effort you see as futility. The Question was pondered by those watching Noah build an Ark, Revolutionist carve out an Independant Nation, Franklin try 10,000 times and fail at the lightbulb .. Of course trying let’s us know what doesn’t work but we only need one that does.

    You seemed focused on Obama when the issue presents itself at least 5 gold stronger in Republicans side and in the wings of the future.

    The considerations of 10 Trillion during the 6.5 years seems of little interest to you, nor even the doubtful judgement condemning the doctors without borders being snuffed out by orders of Obama’s lost calculating error. Witnessed upon witnesses are yours to see but you do not see.

    Of course can you imagine 9 Justices gathered around holding my Motion for IFP adding up deductions minusing cost , adding numbers on their calculators and then with a show of hands deliberating on the numbers?

    I don’t see that either.

    What are we left with ?

    Clerks ., doing the numbers and either not knowing the difference between “Gross” or “Net” or simply fudging their recomendations. (?)

    It all comes out in the wash.. We will know someday.

  73. CRJ says:
    October 8, 2015 at 12:30 pm  (Quote)

    One other Q. for your consideration.

    If CRJ’s IFP MOTION was correctly filled out, and by ALL means in the balances of Justice should have been granted.. Would you fight for me? Would you protest the injustice?

    That should be a resouding “Yes” IF your motives and desires are True.

  74. CRJ says:
    October 8, 2015 at 12:48 pm  (Quote)

    Obama may have insiders committed to protecting him now, but the loyalty to do so will not last forever. You see the Revolt of TTP happening in the Democratic Party now in the interest of “Jobs” .. An abandoning of the 0-ship is underway and will only increase with time until even the R illegal candidates are indeed fished out and roasted in the race. Watch!

    The days of 0 are not without numbers enjoy every one.

    If you had seen the rain falling whilst the ark was being built of course your concern would have been shifted as those who drown shifted when they tired of swimming.

    For those just joining here these are the considered documents submitted to the Court.

    1- https://www.scribd.com/doc/270192631/Motion-Application-for-Time-Extension-Judy-v-Obama-14-9396

    2- https://www.scribd.com/doc/271844975/Application-for-Stay-on-Denial-Judy-v-Obama-14-9396

    3- https://www.scribd.com/doc/269622543/IFP-Reconsideration-Review-Judy-v-Obama-14-9396

  75. CRJ says:
    October 8, 2015 at 2:04 pm  (Quote)

    Of course, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Doc for not banning me from your association.

    It is difficult to explain the love I have come to have for each and every one of you. I might chalk it up to the considerations of the adjectives forming the basis of my Nick name here: WORD SALAD

    And each of you part of that glorious concoction a little carrot, onion,cabbage, tomatoe,spinach, cruton, lettuce, cheese, and dressing in disguise.

    As you or I would read any of those three Documents we would know the “room” was getting smaller on the Clerks and Justice Sotomayor as the record implies there is no room for doubt as to what this ‘Cert’ is about. . and I made it so.

    There might have been a plain Motion or Application that would have disguised the Cert or kept the reader unaware of the Core of the Cert to amicably insulate the reader, but this kid didn’t give anyone the benefit of that doubt.

    To say I’m not a lawyer might be a recognition of the facts and insult to the assumption of even the Question, however it was not my desire to creep up and snag by trick or treat the plain and precious Truths.

    Clarence Thomas showed his true colors again. .Saying in dicta in the USSC that citizens at birth (8 US Code S. 1401 (c)(d)(g) are considered natural born Citizens, even after saying that the Consular report is part of the Congressional naturalization power.

    With “conservatives” who outwardly show more discontent for the “Laws of Nature” than the 75mph speed limit , I say, let them drive 100mph! Let them prove God exist the way they want to.

    He has given them the freedom to, let them try to replace GOD, let them sit in that seat, spouting discontent and proud talk, let them stir that pourage and let them eat that cake at the celebration of their own devastingly monumental embarrassment so repulsive they fein a prayer that the rocks fall in them hoping to be covered by at least something rather than being exposed to the Face of him that sitteth upon the Throne of the Laws of Nature .

    The very worst thing in the world to them is to be called just plain old Stupid while they hold their degrees and confirmations in their hands naked of anything that would count as common sense like some trousers and some drawers.

    (Smile) That is not to say I put any such thing or added to the IFP MOTION , as you see in the Motion for Extension of Time. , not wanting to bore the Court with redundancy.

    Polite Excuse is not really what I left them with in the Review. I much preferred to leave them with the hard facts of their staked out positions of which I did not want any confusion to rest for the Readers in American History of which I have no doubt billions will yet read.

  76. Bonsall Obot says:
    October 8, 2015 at 4:40 pm  (Quote)

    Feel better, pumpkin?
    Now shoo. Adults are speaking.

  77. Nightflyer says:
    October 8, 2015 at 4:45 pm  (Quote)

    Wow…that four-part outburst from CRJ defines the term “verbal diarrhea.”

  78. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    October 8, 2015 at 5:11 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    -Long indecipherable rant-

    Allow me to translate:
    “I WANNA BE PRESIDENT! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!” “ME! ME! ME! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!” *audible pant-pooping sound*

  79. Nightflyer says:
    October 8, 2015 at 5:12 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Allow me to translate:
    “I WANNA BE PRESIDENT! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!”“ME! ME! ME! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!” *audible pant-pooping sound*

    Tell CRJ to grab a number and stand in line…the Republicans already have 14 pigs dipping at the trough…

  80. bob says:
    October 8, 2015 at 5:23 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    To answer Q- The IFP MOTION was filled out completely. Its quite detailed asking questions you simply answer in their detailed format.

    So Judy says, yet he has yet to post it. WHAT IS JUDY HIDING??!?

    Clerks ., doing the numbers and either not knowing the difference between “Gross” or “Net” or simply fudging their recomendations. (?)

    As expected: Instead of taking responsibility for his own shortcomings, Judy — without any evidence — blames others.

    It all comes out in the wash.. We will know someday.

    We know all that is needed to know: Judy’s frivolous suit is finally over.

    If CRJ’s IFP MOTION was correctly filled out, and by ALL means in the balances of Justice should have been granted.. Would you fight for me? Would you protest the injustice?

    “If,” again is doing all the heavy lifting: There’s no evidence that the application was properly filed out.

    If it was, I would gladly fight for Judy’s “right” … to have his frivolous cert. petition denied.

  81. Pete says:
    October 8, 2015 at 5:26 pm  (Quote)

    Cody,

    Here, I’m willing to respond to your posts. I hope you’re willing to hear what I have to say.

    First, if your case hadn’t been a waste of judicial resources to start with, I would be able to extend my sincere condolences on the death of your IFP status.

    I’ve no idea why your IFP status wasn’t granted by the Court. I can tell you this, though: Our court system is made up of people, and people don’t always do what you think they should do. The last time I was personally in a courtroom (not my case, but I was there as moral support) the judge simply decided not to hear a plaintiff who had good evidence to present and good reason for his request. Was the judge’s refusal to even hear the evidence just? No. Was it worth appealing? No. Not in this instance.

    In your case, it frankly doesn’t matter. It just didn’t matter whether your case was tossed at this point, or whether the Court wasted enough of their resources to determine that yes, the lower courts ruled correctly and the case was simply frivolous.

    Of course, I’m going to extend the same courtesy that Dr. C offered you, and admit that I’m not 100% CERTAIN your case was frivolous, because I’ve never read it. The little bit I did read fully affirmed my decision not to spend another moment trying to figure it out.

    Here’s a valuable point of feedback: Your communication skills could use some improvement.

    People aren’t impressed by complicated sentence structure and obscure analogy. Your readers don’t think, “Gosh, that Cody Judy is SUCH a smart guy.”

    They think, “What the hell was THAT supposed to be about?”

    Even if your readers are intelligent (and I think you might be surprised at the average level of intellectual and academic achievement of the readers of this blog), they’re not going to waste very much of their time and attention trying to figure out just what the hell you were trying to say. It’s not their job to decipher your word puzzles. It’s your job to communicate, and to do so clearly.

    You can start by reading what you’re writing, and asking, “If I weren’t me, would this make any sense? And is there a way in which I might word this more clearly?”

    That’s good advice, if you’ll heed it.

    [continued]

  82. Pete says:
    October 8, 2015 at 5:29 pm  (Quote)

    As to your question:

    Are you BIRTHERS of Cruz, Rubio, or Jindal.. McCain.. Or just apposed to Obama being considered constitutionally unqualified because of some advantage he has(? ).

    I’m going to make this as clear as possible.

    Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and John McCain are ALL natural born citizens under the Constitution and thus qualified to be elected and serve as President of the United States. All were born United States citizens. That is the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

    If any of the above should be elected President, I don’t think you’ll find a single person among the regular non-birther contingent here who will raise an objection. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

    Of all of the above, the only ones that would raise even a shadow of legal doubt would be Ted Cruz and John McCain. And that’s only because the US Supreme Court has never issued a specific ruling affirming that children born US citizens abroad are natural born citizens for the purposes of Presidential qualification. If such a court case ever reached the high Court, I and I think everyone else here would be EXTREMELY surprised if they failed to affirm the natural born citizenship of such persons. The US Congress, for its part, has previously affirmed McCain’s status as a natural born citizen.

    Clarence Thomas showed his true colors again. .Saying in dicta in the USSC that citizens at birth (8 US Code S. 1401 (c)(d)(g) are considered natural born Citizens, even after saying that the Consular report is part of the Congressional naturalization power.

    It appears in fact that all persons who are born United States citizens are “natural born citizens.” This appears to be the plain historical and legal meaning of the term.

    This being true, and it also being true that the Founding Fathers gave Congress some discretion to determine which children born abroad of US parent(s), and under what circumstances, are US CITIZENS AT BIRTH, it follows that the Founding Fathers, in this sole instance, gave Congress the authority to set some of the rules for exactly which of these foreign-born descendants of Americans would be included as “natural born citizens.”

    That may offend your sense of “natural law.” You may think it shouldn’t be that way. It doesn’t matter. That’s the way it is. Furthermore, it’s the way it always HAS been.

    Are you of a different opinion? It doesn’t matter, for the simple reason that YOUR OPINION IS NOT THE OPINION WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE. And neither, for the record, is mine.

    The ONLY opinions that matter are those of the US Supreme Court and of our previous court cases, and of the Founding Fathers and the vast majority (and I’m talking about 98% here) of all recognized American legal experts throughout history.

    And those are pretty close to unanimous.

    So the definition of “natural born citizen” at this point seems pretty clear.

    Anyone who was born a United States citizen, rather than having to go through a formal naturalization process, qualifies.

  83. Nightflyer says:
    October 8, 2015 at 5:31 pm  (Quote)

    “Here’s a valuable point of feedback: Your communication skills could use some improvement.

    People aren’t impressed by complicated sentence structure and obscure analogy. Your readers don’t think, “Gosh, that Cody Judy is SUCH a smart guy.”

    They think, “What the hell was THAT supposed to be about?'”

    Truer words were never spoke, Bob.

    I have a pal at work who does our organization’s writing — he has a lot of years as a journalist, and he tells me that the central point to good writing is to write clearly. Nobody will be impressed if your vocabulary is hefty, and nobody will bend to your will if it’s obscene or sarcastic. It has to be clear and lucid…in terms so plain and firm that everyone will understand what you are saying…”to put before mankind the common sense of the subject in terms so firm and plain as to command their assent,” as Thomas Jefferson ACTUALLY said.

    And I’m sure you’re a big fan of Thomas Jefferson.

  84. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 8, 2015 at 5:33 pm  (Quote)

    While I’ve only mentioned it briefly, the controversy over whether Grace Poe is a natural born citizen of the Philippines continues, with major press coverage. A new article in the Philippine Star says Poe is expected to submit to a DNA test. Poe was a foundling.

    Edited to say: Kercnher posted the link at BR too. He thinks Obama should have to submit to a DNA test too.

  85. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    October 8, 2015 at 5:38 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: They think, “What the hell was THAT supposed to be about?”

    Pretty much this! Any one of CRJ’s blog posts reads like cross between lorem ipsum and one of those Nigerian Prince scam emails. Your average human being cannot translate what he is trying to say, into workable, understandable thoughts. The closest analogy I can come up with is that trying to understand one of his rants, let alone explain them, would be akin to trying to explain colors to someone who has been blind their entire life.

  86. bob says:
    October 8, 2015 at 6:08 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ: Franklin try 10,000 times and fail at the lightbulb

    Franklin did not invent the lightbulb. And you, “Mr. President,” are no Franklin.

    [H/t: Slarti.]

  87. Slartibartfast says:
    October 8, 2015 at 6:11 pm  (Quote)

    This is a very good point. CRJ, like all birthers, believes that presidential candidates should reveal anything they are asked for. He claims his suit depended on the fact that he, himself, is a presidential candidate. It doesn’t take a logician to figure out the rest.

    Mr. Judy,

    Can you explain why you have spent millions of dollars (in mockery of your IFP application) to seal this document?

    bob: So Judy says, yet he has yet to post it. WHAT IS JUDY HIDING??!?

  88. Comrade Fogovich says:
    October 8, 2015 at 6:15 pm  (Quote)

    I guess if you can’t successfully litigate in the courts, you can always come here and whine about it. Birthers don’t know this, but there are actually lawyers who know how to win a lawsuit. ‘Course, it helps to have some law and facts on your side.

  89. bob says:
    October 8, 2015 at 6:22 pm  (Quote)

    Comrade Fogovich:
    I guess if you can’t successfully litigate in the courts, you can always come here and whine about it.

    Or pull an Apuzzo and haunt random blogs’ comment sections.

  90. Sam the Centipede says:
    October 8, 2015 at 7:48 pm  (Quote)

    bob: Or pull an Apuzzo and haunt random blogs’ comment sections.

    SSSSHHHHHH!!!!! CAREFUL!!!! If you say his name three times, Mario will appear and wail and clank his chains!

  91. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 8, 2015 at 8:05 pm  (Quote)

    The essential fallacy of birther commentary on the term “natural born citizen” is that the term never had anything to do with Natural Law. “Natural born” means nothing more or less than “with the nature born” and in the phrase in the Constitution and in English Common Law, it means “with the nature of a citizen born.” This is the only historical definition of “natural born” in the Oxford English Dictionary.

    This is not contradicted by Vattel either. For him, those born with citizenship in a society are those born in the country of citizen fathers or male relatives (parens in the French of the time can refer to blood relatives). The United States defined its citizenship according to English Common Law based in turn on a feudal system where subjecthood devolved on those born in the domain of the monarch and under his allegiance (and in practice this was determined by place of birth, with a few exceptions).

    CRJ: With “conservatives” who outwardly show more discontent for the “Laws of Nature” than the 75mph speed limit , I say, let them drive 100mph! Let them prove God exist the way they want to.

  92. CRJ says:
    October 8, 2015 at 8:11 pm  (Quote)

    Pete
    Appreciate your thoughts. It takes some fortitude to answer at length in comparison to the genius warriors who manage not mis-spelling a word in one or two sentences.

    Hat Tip to you 🏁🍻 Cheers!

    Audibly declaring you’d be happy to support my IFP Status in the Order of seeing my Cert denide was Priceless!

    Thank you all for sharing and caring! We’re not enemies just Americans having a good fight in the living room.
    Respect

    You know the problem is the pool of which many look to in drafting a good President, and the differences in age, time , and resident requirements someone thought a good idea making some in Congress ineligible to their bruised ego and tantrum.

  93. bob says:
    October 8, 2015 at 8:26 pm  (Quote)

    Judy returns, but fails to post his original IFP application. Typical.

  94. CRJ says:
    October 8, 2015 at 8:31 pm  (Quote)

    Does anyone know any U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator who is not qualified in their mind to be U.S. President?

    I seemed to recall a conversation between Justice Thomas and Representative Serrano who stated he wasn’t qualified for President, but could be a SCOTUS JUSTICE for life or a Rep.

    Committee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., actually raised the question first amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

    “I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”

    Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative, but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

    “I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the Court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”

    “And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”

    This in contrast to my other JUSTICE Thomas Quote.
    Clarence Thomas showed his true colors again. .Saying in dicta in the USSC that citizens at birth (8 US Code S. 1401 (c)(d)(g) are considered natural born Citizens, even after saying that the Consular report is part of the Congressional naturalization power.

    Cruz ..McCain definitely not born in U.S.

    It seems in all fairness, the Black Robes are the confused and confusing

  95. CRJ says:
    October 8, 2015 at 8:44 pm  (Quote)

    Bob

    In consideration of your comment, my dileberation would be simply more assertion that I had changed the numbers from what the Court dilberated upon.

    You see I’m wise to your game where rule number 1 is it’s CRJ’s fault, and Rule number 2 is, when in doubt refer to Rule number 1.

    How would you know unless I flew you out to Hawaii, Ressurected Mrs. Fuddy, and posted our pictures together on FB in the Lincoln Bedroom?

  96. bob says:
    October 8, 2015 at 8:53 pm  (Quote)

    Judy’s word salad, again, makes no sense.

    Judy whines that the U.S. Supreme Court improperly denied his IFP application, but he refuses to show what he actually filed with the court.

    Judy’s incoherent ramblings here and elsewhere lead me to believe that the fault lies, not with the U.S. Supreme Court, but with him — and him alone.

  97. RanTalbott says:
    October 8, 2015 at 8:56 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: If such a court case ever reached the high Court, I and I think everyone else here would be EXTREMELY surprised if they failed to affirm the natural born citizenship of such persons.

    I wouldn’t. In Rogers v Bellei, the Court held that Congress could put conditions on jus sanguinis citizenship, and revoke it if they weren’t met. That suggests that it’s not equal to jus soli citizenship, which can never be taken away involuntarily. It’s consistent with the notion of “naturalization at birth” that birthers are so fond of.

    So it looks to me like the decision could go either way. Since IANAL, there may be some other legal principles I don’t know about that might prevail, but the amount of dissent from the “born a citizen == natural born” consensus indicates that it’s not a foregone conclusion.

    Pete: The US Congress, for its part, has previously affirmed McCain’s status as a natural born citizen.

    In a non-binding resolution, passed only in the Senate, about a specific, highly-respected, individual. I wonder whether they’d do the same for Cruz…

  98. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 8, 2015 at 9:18 pm  (Quote)

    My guess is that there are some. Historically there have been, such as Lincoln Díaz-Balart who served in the House until 2011; he’s from Cuba.

    CRJ: Does anyone know any U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator who is not qualified in their mind to be U.S. President?

  99. bob says:
    October 8, 2015 at 9:44 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My guess is that there are some.

    Not that it matters, but there are at least three naturalized citizens serving in Congress.

    What Judy thinks this might prove exists only his head.

  100. Pete says:
    October 8, 2015 at 9:58 pm  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: In Rogers v Bellei, the Court held that Congress could put conditions on jus sanguinis citizenship, and revoke it if they weren’t met. That suggests that it’s not equal to jus soli citizenship, which can never be taken away involuntarily. It’s consistent with the notion of “naturalization at birth” that birthers are so fond of.

    Okay, let’s start with that just as a point of reference.

    Congress has never placed a condition on jus sanguinis citizenship that says a person born a citizen through jus sanguinis is NOT a “natural born citizen” for the sake of Presidential eligibility.

    On the contrary, one of the Acts of the First Congress was to explicitly declare children born abroad of US citizens to be “natural born citizens.” This was immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, so it was completely clear what that meant. In that sense, there is a historical precedent: The First Congress (which included many of the Framers of the Constitution) appear to have wanted such persons to be eligible to the Presidency.

    The minority in Wong argued that it made no sense that the children born here of Chinese parents (who themselves could never become US citizens) should be eligible to the Presidency, and the children of US citizens born abroad should not. Divorced from the original objection (which was that WKA was not a US citizen) I think that’s a pretty compelling argument.

    Third, while the question has never been ruled on by the USSC, it’s been explored quite a bit by various legal scholars, and it’s not one on which there is no opinion. The broad consensus of legal scholars seems to be that persons born US citizens abroad are, in fact, eligible. The Court is under no obligation to rule with the consensus of other legal opinion, but for it to rule otherwise would be a bit of a surprise.

    Finally, there is the consideration that any court case would most likely involve a candidate with a real chance of winning the Presidency. Such a candidate would be well-respected and have the backing of millions, if not tens of millions, of Americans. In fact, by the time such a case reached the Supreme Court, he or she would likely be the official nominee of either the Democratic or Republican Party. SCOTUS would be very unlikely to throw up a roadblock to the people’s choice of a President unless there was some very compelling reason to do so. Such a compelling reason certainly does not exist either in the history or the law of the term “natural born citizen,” which by my definition means “born a citizen” and by Doc’s (which may be more accurate) means “born having the nature of a citizen.”

    Those factors taken together are why I would be very surprised for the Court to rule otherwise.

  101. Rickey says:
    October 8, 2015 at 10:14 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    One other Q. for your consideration.

    If CRJ’s IFP MOTION was correctly filled out, and by ALL means in the balances of Justice should have been granted.. Would you fight for me? Would you protest the injustice?

    That should be a resouding “Yes” IF your motives and desires are True.

    Here is a reality check for you.

    Regardless of whether you were granted IFP status, your petition was going to be rejected. Your lawsuit was found to be frivolous by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. You did not have standing in part because your candidacy for president was a sham (you weren’t on the ballot in a single state so you had no chance of being elected). The issues which you raised were moot. To the extent that you wanted to disqualify Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal, you were doomed to failure because you failed to make them parties to your lawsuit.

    Your motion for reconsideration was a disaster. Instead of focusing on the details of your financial condition, you accused the Court of being unfair to poor people. I guess you missed the fact that in the 10/5/15 Order List there are 11 cases in which in forma pauperis motions were granted.

    Obviously, we do not know the specific reasons why your IFP motion was denied, so we can only speculate. If you want to post a copy of your IFP motion, we have people here who could tell you if you messed it up. In any event, SCOTUS is not required to grant you IFP status simply because the lower courts did.

    Finally, your cert petition is largely indecipherable. You do not know how to write simple expository sentences. Consider the following paragraph which you wrote:

    Question – POLICING THE JUDICIAL BENCH – When a law enforcement investigation is submitted to the court under the authority of the Sherman/Clayton Acts of Congress directive to reign in activity by two or more corporations forming an illegal carter in the political arena whereupon it is stated the Court’s obliged duty is to direct an investigation with an appropriate prosecutor, is it a misprision offense if the Court refuses that Congressional Directive that could lead to a dissolution of the entire Supreme Court suggested by Obama recently in Cleveland, Ohio to only take a matter of time?

    You may understand what that is supposed to mean, but if you turned in something like that in English class it would get you a grade of F.

  102. Rickey says:
    October 8, 2015 at 10:57 pm  (Quote)

    In the prior note, that should be “illegal cartel” not “illegal carter.”

  103. bob says:
    October 9, 2015 at 12:00 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: To the extent that you wanted to disqualify Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal, you were doomed to failure because you failed to make them parties to your lawsuit.

    Judy never served them, and only added them to his SCOTUS filing, which isn’t allowed.

    Yet Judy has the temerity to accuse SCOTUS of being incompetent.

  104. gorefan says:
    October 9, 2015 at 12:09 am  (Quote)

    RanTalbott: It’s consistent with the notion of “naturalization at birth” that birthers are so fond of.

    The State Departments manual says that children born in foreign countries to U.S. citizens parents are not considered naturalized.

    It also says whether they are natural born citizens has never been determined.

    Pete: The First Congress (which included many of the Framers of the Constitution) appear to have wanted such persons to be eligible to the Presidency.

    It is clear that the Founders/Framers believed that Congress could create natural born citizens by law. Which is what they did in 1790. But in 1795 they removed the natural born clause from the 1795 Naturalization Act.

    Doesn’t this mean that they no longer wanted such children to be eligible to be president? And since the term was not added back in subsequent acts, would we have to assume they are still not eligible?

  105. Lupin says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:07 am  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    PeteAppreciate your thoughts. It takes some fortitude to answer at length in comparison to the genius warriors who manage not mis-spelling a word in one or two sentences.

    Hat Tip to you Cheers!

    Audibly declaring you’d be happy to support my IFP Status in the Order of seeing my Cert denide was Priceless!

    Thank you all for sharing and caring! We’re not enemies just Americans having a good fight in the living room.
    Respect

    You know the problem is the pool of which many look to in drafting a good President, and the differences in age, time , and resident requirements someone thought a good idea making some in Congress ineligible to their bruised ego and tantrum.

    First, your English sucks, as usual. Half of what you write is gobbledygook.

    Second (this will not be news to regular readers here), it is not that widely known but James Madison was offered French citizenship by the Assembly of the French Revolution in 16 August 1791 as an acknowledgement of his contributions for the cause of liberty.

    This upset James Monroe, who was then US Ambassador to France, because it seemed to him that it challenged the principle of exclusive American citizenship. Thomas Paine disagreed.

    Madison was sufficiently aware of the pitfalls of accepting a dual citizenship that he felt the need to clear his letter of acceptance with then-President Thomas Jefferson beforehand on 27 May 1793.

    Jefferson decided there was nothing wrong with dual citizenship and forwarded Madison’s letter to French Ambassador Edmond Charles Genet.

    Considering the context of times, rife with potential conflicts of interest with France, this is overwhelming evidence that your own Founders were not hostile to the notion of dual citizenship in terms of it being a factor of eligibility in a future president.

    So Madison, Jefferson and Paine all claim that your fanciful legal notions are pure rubbish. Case closed.

  106. Pete says:
    October 9, 2015 at 10:52 am  (Quote)

    gorefan: Doesn’t this mean that they no longer wanted such children to be eligible to be president? And since the term was not added back in subsequent acts, would we have to assume they are still not eligible?

    Offhand, this is the only hazard I can think of to the election of someone like Ted Cruz. However, personally, I don’t think it’s that big of a hazard.

    Beyond that, it seems likely that Congress has the power even in such an event to retroactively declare persons of American parentage to be natural born citizens. The entire model that Congress was based on was the English Parliament, and Parliament possessed and exercised such power prior to the drafting of our Constitution.

    So even in a worst case scenario where Ted Cruz (for example) runs for President and the Supreme Court says, sorry, Congress omitted and never reinstated Presidential eligibility for persons born US citizens abroad, it seems to me that such a problem, with a Presidential-electable candidate, might well be reparable by the time of actual election and service. Of course, such repair would also be dependent on the politics of the moment.

  107. Pete says:
    October 9, 2015 at 10:58 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: Considering the context of times, rife with potential conflicts of interest with France, this is overwhelming evidence that your own Founders were not hostile to the notion of dual citizenship in terms of it being a factor of eligibility in a future president.

    As I recall, we had at least one early President who was actually a dual citizen while he was serving as President.

  108. gorefan says:
    October 9, 2015 at 11:17 am  (Quote)

    Pete: As I recall, we had at least one early President who was actually a dual citizen while he was serving as President.

    “According to the usages and understanding of all nations a man may have all the rights of a naturalized citizen or subject in his adopted country, and yet retain all his relations, civil and political, in his native country. For instance, the Marquis La Fayette was naturalized in the United States, but retained every such relation to France. So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen, but he certainly retained all his relations to the United states, his rights and duties as a native citizen, and was in fact after such naturalization, elected President of the United States.” – Nathan Dane, A General Abridgment and Digest of American Law: With Occasional Notes and Comments, in Eight Volumes (1823)

  109. Nightflyer says:
    October 9, 2015 at 11:19 am  (Quote)

    Hey, CRJ: Are you running for president again this time?

    We need the laughs, and all you get are re-runs at this time of year.

    We want to hear your platform.

  110. bob says:
    October 9, 2015 at 11:27 am  (Quote)

    Nightflyer:
    Hey, CRJ: Are you running for president again this time?

    Judy’s “running.” Which means he filled out one form, and then blogs about being a “candidate.” But Judy does not campaign, and his name will appear on no ballot.

    And, of course: Judy solicits money, and then spends that money on his personal needs, like going to McDonald’s and renting movies.

  111. Nightflyer says:
    October 9, 2015 at 11:34 am  (Quote)

    bob: Judy’s “running.”Which means he filled out one form, and then blogs about being a “candidate.”But Judy does not campaign, and his name will appear on no ballot.

    And, of course: Judy solicits money, and then spends that money on his personal needs, like going to McDonald’s and renting movies.

    Ah, yes, of course. Like most grifters who camouflage their grifting as a non-profit charity or a political/nationalist organization.

    Among the legendary right-wing nutballs who have been nailed for taking donations and using them for personal purposes are Tom Metzger, Jeff Schoep, Fritz Kuhn, and David Duke.

    The latter was my favorite. He took cash and checks donated to his neo-Nazi party and then used the funds to study the laws of probability on Mississippi River casino boats in his New Orleans home, where he was a “whale,” being comped, and given limousine rides to the boat and back. Supposedly this public racist treated the black and Latino croupiers and staff with the utmost courtesy. When the IRS found he was using moneys intended for his 501 (c3) for gambling, they prosecuted and sent him to prison.

    His followers were furious (having been bilked). His defense was that he hoped to use these funds to gain more money, doing so at the expense of the Jewish-run system he opposed. It didn’t fly too well. He flew off to Europe, claiming that Eastern Europe was the last refuge of the white race, leaving out the fact that it had remained so because of the Communist rule that he so publicly despised.

    Strong logic was never David Duke’s suit, but grifting was and is, and CRJ continues that grand tradition.

    CRJ, if you’re reading this, where do you stand on funding public mass transit? Remember, there is no Republican or Democratic way to pave a street.

  112. Pete says:
    October 9, 2015 at 11:54 am  (Quote)

    CRJ: Thank you all for sharing and caring! We’re not enemies just Americans having a good fight in the living room.

    Cody,

    You’re very welcome.

    By preference, I’d rather be at peace with everyone. Some people, unfortunately (and it’s true of people on both sides of just about any issue) see things more as “friend, or enemy.”

    The reality is, life isn’t that simple. People who seem to be on the same side as you aren’t always your friends, and people who may be hard on you aren’t always your enemies.

    In any event, I wish you well.

  113. Pete says:
    October 9, 2015 at 11:59 am  (Quote)

    Thanks, gorefan.

    So there ya go. No less than Thomas Jefferson, author of our Declaration of Independence, Founder extraordinaire, and Third President of the United States, was elected President while a dual citizen with France.

  114. CRJ says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:02 pm  (Quote)

    @Gorfan RE: President Jefferson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
    Really have no idea why people do not understand the “natural born Citizen”( ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) was not in place for the early Presidents.

    The Constitution declared, “Or [C]itizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”. Does that not ring in your ears? Hello?

    The [United States] was created under the Constitution September 17th, 1787. Really impossible to have [Citizens] of a United States before hand, and very impossible to have [*natural born Citizens].

    @Pete – A sincere thank you for wishing me well.

    @Nightflyer – Try “spending” your time on the T-Rex in the Room rather than the ‘nat’. You might not get eaten that way. How many trips for pizza and McDonald’s does 18 Million cover in the First Quarter? http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/hillary-clinton-second-quarter-fundraising

    If your post wasn’t insulting it might be funny to some but grasping for Mr. Duke is simply an insult to our Constitution for it declares in Amendment XV [The right to vote shall not be denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.]

    My Platform covered in many Post:
    1-
    http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/07/it-is-official-cody-robert-judy-for.html?m=1

    2- http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2011/12/cody-robert-judy-presents-crjs-three.html?m=1

    3 – http://www.codyjudy.us

    4- WITH ALL DUE RESPECT listen to the hours of commercials made by my Campaign(s) starting here.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL42539C3948B285D1&v=iQmh-tf0Vfo

    Now, I realize many chaulk up my running for President as filing out 1 paper called an FEC Declaration Form, however, just a quick glance at the Commercials , Web Sites, Social Media outlets, 14 Court Records not all of which were forma pauperis ie. Judy v. McCain, created for my Campaigns places nothing but complete and utter embarrassment upon the disparaging comments, and we suppose ignorant, dumb, or stupid authors of such, in mental disabled or disturbed appearances.

    We should notice sympathy for such if they are truly incompetent individuals. For those desiring rides and entertainment there are Farris Wheels going round and round- we can present tickets to them for the Circus and Funny Farms. They identify themselves as we can all see.

    Of course, I have not been one who decided I couldn’t access two email accounts on one device for convenience and FOIA obligations as an SOS ; neither have I been one who wants your vote based on the package 📦 between my legs ; neither have I been one to sell my Campaign shares in a pay-to-play scheme presented to Foreign Governments as well Domestic corporation sponsors; neither have I been one to stoke the fires of hate upon America by blaming a video for the Benghazi attacks , not fanned weapons through Qutar arming ISIS, Al Quida, and El Nusra poseing as moderates in Syria; neither have I laughed at assasinating heads of foreign States such as Libya, or worked tirelessly to ensure a Muslim Brotherhood State in Egypt creating disaster after disaster in our National Security interest.

    I suppose the Relief and Blessings are mine Thank The Lord in Heaven, that I’ve done ALL I’ve done with the paltry less than $5,000 contribution totals over THREE Presidential Elections cycles combined and my own hard work, dedication, and talent.

    Now, while you have been sitting on your hands wacking your Willy, our Country is another 10 Trillion in debt over those same 3 election cycles I’m talking about.

    That makes your comments about my contributions certainly about as senseless as waving your hands in a defense to stop a nuclear explosion aimed at us. People are laughing at you far more then they are laughing at me. , and you are the Joker Fool.

  115. Dave B. says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:05 pm  (Quote)

    Another Obama birth certificate surfaces, courtesy of unstoppable juggernaut Trump Deez Nuts campaign:
    http://www.votetrumpdeeznuts2016.com/obamas-birth-certificate-trump-birthers-right/

  116. Nightflyer says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:15 pm  (Quote)

    Wow, Cody, that was a hysterical, incoherent, shrill, and childish statement.

    I can’t wait to see you in the Republican presidential debate.

    Tell me again how many votes you got in your previous presidential runs? How far you got in your court cases? The relevance of any of that to the debt ceiling?

    “Wacking Your Willy?” “the package between my legs?” Really? That’s language becoming the President of the United States? Yes, that’s right up there with Lincoln, both Roosevelts, and Kennedy. Maybe in your dreams and web page…

    By the way, you do realize that every second you waste arguing with a group of people who you will never convince and have not the slightest support for your position in any way only takes you away from going out and informing those millions of people you fondly believe are really on your side on how to support your campaign. They’re the ones you should be talking to. You need them to rush to your side, checkbooks in one hand, “documents” in the other to prove your case.

    Remember, folks, “Cast a vote for Cody Robert Judy, and watch for the silver lining! Cast two votes for Cody Robert Judy, and watch for the police!”

  117. bob says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:17 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    @Gorfan RE: President Jefferson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
    Really have no idea why people do not understand the “natural born Citizen”( ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) was not in place for the early Presidents.

    Because, regardless of how many frivolous lawsuits Judy and his ilk file, there is no two-citizen-parent “rule.”

    Of course, Judy considers vanity postings to Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube to be an effective campaign — despite there being no evidence that anyone has ever voted for Judy for president.

  118. Sef says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:24 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ: The [United States] was created under the Constitution September 17th, 1787. Really impossible to have [Citizens] of a United States before hand, and very impossible to have [*natural born Citizens].

    If that were true there could have been no Congresscritters or Senators or Justices in 1789. I presume you realize that only the President is effected by the grandfather clause. And Congress had yet to create a naturalization act, so there could be no “Citizens of the United States” for quite a while. Just another example of not thinking things through.

  119. CRJ says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:28 pm  (Quote)

    @Bob You forget the Crux of two Citizen Parents mentioned as law in both Congress and The SCOTUS?

    U.S. Sen Res 511
    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text
    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American [c]itizens ”

    SCOTUS Minor v. Happersett
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett
    “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of [p]arents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

  120. bob says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:41 pm  (Quote)

    Neither Minor nor SR 511 reference a two-citizen-parent “rule.” To claim otherwise, especially in light of the numerous cases expressly stating the opposite, is (at best) frivolity.

    But Judy would rather perpetuate long-since-debunked birther lies than produce his IFP application that he claims he filed with SCOTUS.

  121. Dave B. says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:46 pm  (Quote)

    Then there’s George Washington being inaugurated as president on April 30, 1789, having satisfied the Constitution’s requirement of being fourteen years a resident within the United States.

    Sef: If that were true there could have been no Congresscritters or Senators or Justices in 1789. I presume you realize that only the President is effected by the grandfather clause. And Congress had yet to create a naturalization act, so there could be no “Citizens of the United States” for quite a while. Just another example of not thinking things through.

  122. Sef says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:49 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Then there’s George Washington being inaugurated as president on April 30, 1789, having satisfied the Constitution’s requirement of being fourteen years a resident within the United States.

    Yes, I made an argument some time ago that this would mean that t=0 for Congressional arguments would be “the 18th of April in ’75”.

  123. CRJ says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:52 pm  (Quote)

    @Bob re:”Of course, Judy considers vanity postings to Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube to be an effective campaign”

    Don’t forget the Dicta (Dicta are authoritative statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.) set by Arkeny stating Obama has thoroughly been vetted on Twitter and the Web.

    Therefore logically and accordingly that’s all you need for a Presidential Campaign that can set things right.
    ANKENY V. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

    https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

    @Sef “Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution covered 14 year residence also “nit-for-nanny” So uneventful for those fighting the Revolution

  124. Pete says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:54 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ: Really have no idea why people do not understand the “natural born Citizen”( ie. Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) was not in place for the early Presidents.

    The Constitution declared, “Or [C]itizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”. Does that not ring in your ears? Hello?

    The [United States] was created under the Constitution September 17th, 1787. Really impossible to have [Citizens] of a United States before hand, and very impossible to have [*natural born Citizens].

    Sorry, Cody, but that’s just flat wrong.

    I know it’s one of those things that seems intuitively obvious, but that was NOT the perspective of the Founders.

    This is ground that has been covered extensively and in great detail in the past, but I’m sure you haven’t read those discussions, so I’ll summarize it for you.

    Thomas Jefferson (and every other early President, for that matter) was a natural born citizen of the United States. We never had a President who had to qualify under the “or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” exception.

    Not one.

    We might’ve had, if Alexander Hamilton hadn’t been killed in a duel. It was very specifically for Hamilton and other foreign-born patriots that the clause was added in the first place. Without such people, the clause would never even have been considered, let alone included. They would’ve left it at “natural born citizen.”

    Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia. John Adams, the President before him, was born in Massachusetts. Jefferson was thus a natural born citizen of the State of Virginia. Adams was a natural born citizen of the State of Massachusetts.

    When those States joined together to form the United States, the citizenship of each member State transferred to the United States as a whole.

    Jefferson was thus a “natural born citizen of the United States.” So was Adams, George Washington and every President elected since.

    And this is not in doubt. It’s just about as clear as that the sun comes up in the east.

  125. Pete says:
    October 9, 2015 at 4:02 pm  (Quote)

    Sef: And Congress had yet to create a naturalization act, so there could be no “Citizens of the United States” for quite a while. Just another example of not thinking things through.

    But this is not true. People like Alexander Hamilton were already citizens of the United States.

    Like virtually everyone in the Colonies, Hamilton was a citizen of the British Empire (technically a “subject,” but it meant essentially the same thing). Upon the American Revolution, it appears that simply by continuing to reside in the United States and participate as a citizen here, British subjects became American citizens.

  126. Pete says:
    October 9, 2015 at 4:07 pm  (Quote)

    As Dave B has noted, George Washington fulfilled the requirement of having resided in the United States for 14 years, although the United States had not been called that during the entire preceding 14 years.

    As far as Minor v Happersett goes,

    “It has never been doubted that followers of Orly Taitz are idiots.”

    Even if the above sentence is true, that doesn’t mean that you have to be a follower of Orly Taitz in order to be an idiot. There are plenty of idiots who aren’t Taitz followers.

    Likewise, Minor v Happersett absolutely does NOT say you have to be born on US soil of two citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen.

    And that’s not just my opinion, or the opinion of every legitimate legal scholar in the country. That’s the official RULING of our court system.

  127. Sef says:
    October 9, 2015 at 4:11 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: As Dave B has noted, George Washington fulfilled the requirement of having resided in the United States for 14 years, although the United States had not been called that during the entire preceding 14 years.

    Whatevs!

  128. CRJ says:
    October 9, 2015 at 4:15 pm  (Quote)

    Pardon my inexperience here, but that would make the language in the COTUS moot in the differences for the Offices of Representative, Senator, and President as illustrated:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ITCr420K4i8

    This does not even account the solid reasoning for making the Office of President much more difficult by the qualification of [T]IME , two generations in born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents in the interest of national security.

    Noting the ease of which it presents itself to simple get a American Citizen in bed as a Foreign Prince MIGHT, say like Mr. Obama Senior did whilst married back in Kenya at the same time, and trotting out a POTUS.

    The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:

    [W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
    http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

  129. Dave B. says:
    October 9, 2015 at 4:34 pm  (Quote)

    Then there’s Jared Shattuck, who was “born in the State of Connecticut in the year 1774,”
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/7/458/case.html
    (at 466-7) or, as Chief Justice Marshall himself put it, “born in the United States.”
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/6/64/case.html
    (at 116).

    Pete: Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia. John Adams, the President before him, was born in Massachusetts. Jefferson was thus a natural born citizen of the State of Virginia. Adams was a natural born citizen of the State of Massachusetts.

  130. CRJ says:
    October 9, 2015 at 4:36 pm  (Quote)

    @Pete I’ll give you “nothing is law” that is not enforced. Obviously it takes a penalty to establish Law.

    Now you may understand why I have fought for the SCOTUS to at least hear the case. I could come over to your place rob you blind, shoot everyone, and declare it Legal according to the lack of definition of Pirate in the Constitution 😎 then burden you with proving it was not a good thing to do at your funeral and yr next of kin.

    By the way “We the People” at the time of adoption was a definition of Citizen before the 14 Amendment.

  131. bob says:
    October 9, 2015 at 4:46 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    Don’t forget the Dicta (Dicta are authoritative statements made by a court which are not binding legal precedent.) set by Arkeny stating Obama has thoroughly been vetted on Twitter and the Web.

    First, it is Ankeny. And Ankeny never said that; it was another case.

    Which has nothing to do with Judy thinking his vanity postings on Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube is effective campaigning.

    https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/us-supreme-court-precedent-states-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

    Donofrio never won a birther case, and has since retired.

    Now you may understand why I have fought for the SCOTUS to at least hear the case

    Because Judy is an attention whore who enjoys wasting judicial resources.

    Speaking of which, where’s Judy’s IFP application that he allegedly filed with SCOTUS?

  132. Crustacean says:
    October 9, 2015 at 4:51 pm  (Quote)

    From pretty much any other commenter here I would consider that a benign (albeit stupid) comment. From a convicted domestic terrorist it’s somewhat creepy and disturbing.

    CRJ, how about a little effort toward *not* crossing that line here, OK?

    CRJ: I could come over to your place rob you blind, shoot everyone, and declare it Legal according to the lack of definition of Pirate in the Constitution.

  133. CRJ says:
    October 9, 2015 at 5:02 pm  (Quote)

    It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;… — Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803)

    This “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in the context of the qualification of the [O]ffice of President cannot mean the exact same thing given the distinction of the “Time” interest collaborating with the National Security Interest posed for its consideration in the first place.

    In the deliberations of Congress 2002 Judicial Committee we find arduous testimony concerning the distinction of a 2nd Generation from that of immigrant national or alien in a decision Not to altar the qualification of “born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents”

    The tradition of 41 Presidents sworn in abiding “Citizen” at the time of the Adoption or natural born Citizen ie born in the U.S to Citizen Parents after, minus Obama- born of a Foreign father, and Arthur burning his Canadian docs

    I am simply your humble witness of the Damages Caused my Campaigns as a Presidential Contender 2016
    http://www.codyjudy.us

  134. bob says:
    October 9, 2015 at 5:14 pm  (Quote)

    No one has said that “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” mean the same thing.

    And President Arthur wasn’t born in Canada. Yet more birther lies.

    Meanwhile, Judy refuses to disclose the IFP application that he claims he filed in SCOTUS.

  135. gorefan says:
    October 9, 2015 at 5:26 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ: This “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in the context of the qualification of the [O]ffice of President cannot mean the exact same thing given the distinction of the “Time” interest collaborating with the National Security Interest posed for its consideration in the first place.

    So natural born citizens cannot be either a senator or a representative since the Constitution specifically says they must be “Citizens of the United States”.

  136. Pete says:
    October 9, 2015 at 5:28 pm  (Quote)

    Cody,

    There is nothing you can quote that hasn’t already been discussed here, ad infinitum. Believe me on this.

    Also believe me when I tell you your concept of “natural born citizen” is simply wrong.

    You are like someone who shows up at a party and insists that the earth is flat. You are simply wrong. It doesn’t matter what arguments you put forth, that you imagine are authoritative or clever. “Natural born citizen” no more means “born in the US of two citizen parents” than the earth is flat. It does not now, never has, and never will.

  137. CRJ says:
    October 9, 2015 at 5:29 pm  (Quote)

    @bob
    For an “Attention Whore” I’m not very good am I? Lol thats funny!!! lmao I mean you have to say as far as national media I’m buried in a pile of Fall leaves compared to the Birther Q Mrs Taitz and Birther K Mr. Trump, but you’d have to give me props for nailing the issue bringing their names to the attention of the political crowd wouldn’t you?

    Translation – This attention whore is very close to breaking into the American Dinner Table talk.

    @crustacean Go crawl back up the dark hole you crawled out of and understand the DCT label is in itself a libel statement for it is false in technical aspects of criminal code. 😂 If I’d of been charged with terrorism I’d have done a maximum 5 years, and under this Administration probably would have received a Ride on Air Force One and dinner. Don’t let those panties tie up in a knot inside you now. Lol

  138. gorefan says:
    October 9, 2015 at 5:32 pm  (Quote)

    bob:
    No one has said that “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” mean the same thing.

    Over at the thread that will never die, Mario said there are two types of citizens – natural born citizens and citizens.

    He claims there is no such thing as a naturalized citizen. LOL

  139. bob says:
    October 9, 2015 at 5:36 pm  (Quote)

    Judy is an attention whore. Judy is also not very good at obtaining the attention he craves. Judy has not caught the attention of the political crowd. Another failure to add to his list of failures.

    And “domestic terrorist” is a colloquial term that accurately describes someone who holds thousands hostage with a bomb (excuse me, “BOM”) threat.

    Meanwhile, still no IFP application from Judy.

  140. CRJ says:
    October 9, 2015 at 5:46 pm  (Quote)

    @Bob As it looks now I do not think your going to need it.. The IFP Application. Its already been setteled. My Cert was not on the “Denied” list was it? (smile)😎🏁

    It’s all good!

  141. bob says:
    October 9, 2015 at 5:53 pm  (Quote)

    Judy claims that SCOTUS improperly processed his IFP application. But Judy can’t show that he properly submitted an IFP application. And Judy makes numerous mistakes (and lies) in this very comments section.

    It is therefore easy to conclude the faults lies, not with SCOTUS, but with Judy, and Judy alone.

    It is “all good” that Judy’s frivolous lawsuit is no longer wasting judicial resources.

  142. Dave B. says:
    October 9, 2015 at 7:27 pm  (Quote)

    Naillin’ Trump:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/10/trump-as-your-drunk-neighbor/409342/

    Man, I’m dyin’ here. I’m so sick of this Cody feller I could almost take a big dose of Steve Craig to get it out of my system. I knew this guy once, he got sent a sample of dog food in the mail. They contacted him a while later and asked how his dog liked it. He told them his dog took one bite and turned around and licked his own behind twice to get the taste out of his mouth.
    All this CRJ business just kind of makes me think of that.

  143. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 9, 2015 at 9:52 pm  (Quote)

    The meanings of undefined terms in the Constitution are understood in reference to the English Common Law (See Smith v. Alabama, Ex Parte Grossman). “We the People” is a rather silly definition to suggest since the Indians were not considered citizens, and they were certainly people.

    CRJ: By the way “We the People” at the time of adoption was a definition of Citizen before the 14 Amendment.

  144. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 9, 2015 at 9:59 pm  (Quote)

    Quoting from your own link:

    “All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. ”

    CRJ: The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting

  145. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 9, 2015 at 10:04 pm  (Quote)

    That wasn’t the Ankeny case. If you’re going to attempt to argue with specialists, you need to up your game considerably.

    CRJ: ) set by Arkeny stating Obama has thoroughly been vetted on Twitter and the Web.

  146. Rickey says:
    October 10, 2015 at 1:27 am  (Quote)

    CRJ:

    U.S. Sen Res 511
    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text
    “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American [c]itizens ”

    Actually, the full quote of the Senate resolution is “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.”

    Does this mean that to be a natural born citizen you have to be born on an American military base?

    Of course not. Like so many birthers, you do not understand the difference between :”sufficient” and “necessary.”

  147. Lupin says:
    October 10, 2015 at 2:47 am  (Quote)

    Pete: As I recall, we had at least one early President who was actually a dual citizen while he was serving as President.

    Yes. James Madison. (Elected after having accepted dual citizenship.)

  148. Lupin says:
    October 10, 2015 at 2:50 am  (Quote)

    Pete:
    Thanks, gorefan.

    So there ya go. No less than Thomas Jefferson, author of our Declaration of Independence, Founder extraordinaire, and Third President of the United States, was elected President while a dual citizen with France.

    Afraid not. There is no real hard historical evidence I could find that Jefferson was ever a French dual citizen, before or after his stint as President. At best there’s inconclusive third party accounts. Madison OTOH is an incontrovertible case.

  149. Lupin says:
    October 10, 2015 at 3:01 am  (Quote)

    I always go back to the sign “Only children whose PARENTS are MEMBERS of the club are allowed to use the pool” [caps mine] to marvel at the willful inability of birthers to understand the very simple notion of a group plural.

    If you want to insure that both parents are concerned you must use BOTH or TWO — in French as in English. As it stands, this means — and is understood by 99.999999% of the population, as EITHER or ONE parent.

    I also note that while CRJ responded to virtually every other comment addressed at him, he utterly failed to respond (not that there is anything to debate) to the fact that three of your founding fathers did not object to the notion of a dual citizen president, making every subsequent claim about divided loyalties etc. complete rubbish.

  150. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 10, 2015 at 8:19 am  (Quote)

    Nor will it ever be. Are you ready to settle our bet?

    CRJ:
    @Bob As it looks now I do not think your going to need it.. The IFP Application. Its already been setteled. My Cert was not on the “Denied” list was it? (smile)😎🏁

    It’s all good!

  151. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 10, 2015 at 8:45 am  (Quote)

    There is a story of a man who sold a mule. The buyer returned the mule saying that the mule was deaf, unable to respond to the commands “gee” and “haw” (right and left). The seller hit the mule upside the head with a board, and then the mule responded. He said, “The mule isn’t deaf. You just have to get his attention.”

    Mr Judy, unfortunately, didn’t get the message from his time in prison, continuing to think he has a superior intellect and calling. In fact, he’s not even a good birther. He doesn’t write coherently, his reasoning is inept, and his grasp of the facts is poor. I fear he’s doomed to a wasted life of fruitless Quixotic pursuits.

    Lupin: I always go back to the sign “Only children whose PARENTS are MEMBERS of the club are allowed to use the pool” [caps mine] to marvel at the willful inability of birthers to understand the very simple notion of a group plural.

  152. W. Kevin Vicklund says:
    October 10, 2015 at 9:56 am  (Quote)

    Update to the docket:

    Oct 8 2015 Case considered closed.

  153. gorefan says:
    October 10, 2015 at 11:08 am  (Quote)

    W. Kevin Vicklund:
    Update to the docket:

    For completeness.

    No. 14-9396

    Title:
    Cody Robert Judy, Petitioner
    v.
    Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

    Docketed: April 20, 2015

    Linked with 15A25

    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    Case Nos.: (14-4136)
    Decision Date: February 3, 2015
    Rehearing Denied: February 27, 2015

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Mar 30 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 20, 2015)

    Apr 27 2015 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from petitioner.

    May 20 2015 Waiver of right of respondent Barack H. Obama, President of the United States to respond filed.

    Jun 3 2015 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 18, 2015.

    Jun 22 2015 The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 13, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

    Jun 24 2015 Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.

    Jun 29 2015 Application (15A25) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of June 22, 2015, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.

    Jul 1 2015 Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.

    Jul 7 2015 Application (15A25) denied by Justice Sotomayor.

    Oct 5 2015 Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.

    Oct 8 2015 Case considered closed.

  154. Pete says:
    October 10, 2015 at 1:24 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I fear he’s doomed to a wasted life of fruitless Quixotic pursuits.

    But isn’t that likely to be true of any birther who keeps birfing?

    I frankly feel a bit sorry for people like Cody, like Nancy and like Paul Irey, all of whom have continued with the quixotic pursuits past the sell-by date. Actually, in each case, I’ve urged them to find something a bit more valuable to do with their lives. There are plenty of places where they could find something to do that really brings value to other people, and some better satisfaction to their own lives.

    I can tell you one thing. Some of the things they’re doing at the moment don’t really lead anywhere.

    So I still hope that Cody (and the others) will find something genuinely valuable to do. There are places where they are actually needed.

  155. Pete says:
    October 10, 2015 at 1:31 pm  (Quote)

    : Oct 8 2015 Case considered closed.

    There’s the official death certificate.

    So Cody, I hope you find something good to do with your life now.

  156. Slartibartfast says:
    October 10, 2015 at 1:40 pm  (Quote)

    Mr. Judy,

    If you are wise, you will do as Pete suggests and view this as an opportunity to get closure and move on with your life instead of looking for the next windmill in this Quixotic quest you’ve been on. Own your mistakes (both the “BOM” incident and the birther cases) and move on with your life and I think you’ll be surprised with how much happier you will be.

    Just my $0.02.

    Pete: There’s the official death certificate.

    So Cody, I hope you find something good to do with your life now.

  157. averagelawyer says:
    October 10, 2015 at 3:15 pm  (Quote)

    Although I am late to the dance, a couple thoughts on John McCain’s eligibility.

    The stated exceptions to the common-law definition of natural born subject/citizen are children of ambassadors and children of invading armies. A naval officer posted to a foreign land is analogous to an ambassador. Basic common-law reasoning would hold the officer’s child subject/citizen of the sovereign the parent served, not the duty-station of birth.

    There is a rule of legal interpretation routinely applied to writings: it is presumed that drafters do not intend absurd results, consequently, courts will reject any interpretation that leads to an absurd result. The purpose of requiring a president to be a natural born citizen is to try to ensure that s/he is loyal to this nation and no other. To deny natural born citizen status, and the presidency, to one born to a serving member of the armed forces because the child was born while the parent was serving this nation abroad is to exclude one perhaps more likely than most to be inculcated with patriotism, loyalty and sense of duty than most — at cross-purposes with the natural born citizenship requirement, i.e., an absurd result.

  158. Dave B. says:
    October 10, 2015 at 5:22 pm  (Quote)

    Well, it sounds plausible enough, but the United States simply doesn’t interpret it that way, either in regard to its own citizens born abroad or to persons born in the United States to foreign parents.

    averagelawyer:
    Although I am late to the dance, a couple thoughts on John McCain’s eligibility.

    The stated exceptions to the common-law definition of natural born subject/citizen are children of ambassadors and children of invading armies. A naval officer posted to a foreign land is analogous to an ambassador. Basic common-law reasoning would hold the officer’s child subject/citizen of the sovereign the parent served, not the duty-station of birth.

    There is a rule of legal interpretation routinely applied to writings: it is presumed that drafters do not intend absurd results, consequently, courts will reject any interpretation that leads to an absurd result. The purpose of requiring a president to be a natural born citizen is to try to ensure that s/he is loyal to this nation and no other. To deny natural born citizen status, and the presidency, to one born to a serving member of the armed forces because the child was born while the parent was serving this nation abroad is to exclude one perhaps more likely than most to be inculcated with patriotism, loyalty and sense of duty than most — at cross-purposes with the natural born citizenship requirement, i.e., an absurd result.

  159. Slartibartfast says:
    October 10, 2015 at 6:04 pm  (Quote)

    While the courts have never ruled on it, it seems likely that they would have come the same conclusion that averagelawyer did: that it would be ridiculous if someone like John McCain were not found to be a natural born citizen. I also think that, in light of the first naturalization act declaring children to be natural born citizens and what the SCOTUS said about it in Minor v. Happersett about later naturalization acts having the same meaning, there is even precedent on which such a decision could be based.

    Dave B.:
    Well, it sounds plausible enough, but the United States simply doesn’t interpret it that way, either in regard to its own citizens born abroad or to persons born in the United States to foreign parents.

  160. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 10, 2015 at 6:05 pm  (Quote)

    While perhaps not stated quite that way, I think the Tribe/Olson report on McCain had the same idea. Chin argues that McCain was not a US citizen at the time of his birth due to quirks in the law. However he was a citizen at birth retroactively. One federal judge in California (Robinson v. Bowen) said McCain was likely eligible.

    averagelawyer: To deny natural born citizen status, and the presidency, to one born to a serving member of the armed forces because the child was born while the parent was serving this nation abroad is to exclude one perhaps more likely than most to be inculcated with patriotism, loyalty and sense of duty than most — at cross-purposes with the natural born citizenship requirement, i.e., an absurd result.

  161. CRJ says:
    October 10, 2015 at 7:32 pm  (Quote)

    Of course the troubling consideration for you Doc concerning our “Bet” is my “Cert” was “NOT DENIDE”. Of course if the bet ended there it’s at most a “draw”.

    For you to win the “Cert” must be “DENIED”.

    I’m sure you’ll agree, Our bet wasn’t that the Case would be closed due to an IFP MOTION being denide. That has nothing to do with the Questions.

    Thus, we will soon see it Re-submitted so if it is to be buried, it can have a “proper burial”.

    You gotta get the Cert denied to properly celebrate and feel genuinly confident in the win correct? Your not going to let a little stone in the path take that away from you, I’m sure.

    Cheers my Friends

  162. Pete says:
    October 10, 2015 at 8:02 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ: Thus, we will soon see it Re-submitted so if it is to be buried, it can have a “proper burial”.

    Obviously you can’t be persuaded of the truth, but it would be every bit as effective for you to put on a feather headdress and dance in a circle. That would have the exact same results on the definition of “natural born citizen,” and it would probably be cheaper.

  163. Pete says:
    October 10, 2015 at 8:03 pm  (Quote)

    Dunning-Kruger.

  164. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 10, 2015 at 8:09 pm  (Quote)

    Sorry, but the bet was that cert would not be granted, not that it would be denied. Attention to detail is not your strong point.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/06/future-news-supreme-court-rejects-judy-plea/#comment-358001

    CRJ:
    Of course the troubling consideration for you Doc concerning our “Bet” is my “Cert” was “NOT DENIDE”. Of course if the bet ended there it’s at most a “draw”.

    For you to win the “Cert” must be “DENIED”.

  165. Pete says:
    October 10, 2015 at 8:23 pm  (Quote)

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

    Seems pretty clear to me.

  166. Slartibartfast says:
    October 10, 2015 at 8:23 pm  (Quote)

    This would be CRJ accepting the bet.

    Will he:

    (a) Admit he lost (fulfilling the terms of the bet)

    (b) Refuse (welshing on the bet)

    or

    (c) Give us some classic John Belushi: “Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”

    I’m betting on (c) except with a lower level of scholarship.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Sorry, but the bet was that cert would not be granted, not that it would be denied. Attention to detail is not your strong point.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/06/future-news-supreme-court-rejects-judy-plea/#comment-358001

  167. Dave B. says:
    October 10, 2015 at 9:06 pm  (Quote)

    I think a court would arrive at the same conclusion, but definitely by a different route. The legislative and judicial histories are pretty plain that having a parent serving in the US military is not by itself sufficient to make someone a US citizen. For example, in 1946, Congress (60 Stat. 708) added subsection (i) to Sec. 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940:
    http://legisworks.org/congress/79/publaw-571.pdf
    to provide for children of US military personnel who had NOT been born US citizens under the unamended Nationality Act. Congress obviously has the power to deny or confer citizenship “to one born to a serving member of the armed forces because the child was born while the parent was serving this nation abroad” depending on whether the circumstances of that birth meet the statutory requirements Congress has set; the courts have had no qualms about deferring to Congress’s constitutional authority to set such requirements.
    And does the United States consider non-diplomatic foreign military officers present in the United States to not be subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
    Now would Congress or the courts– or the public– deny natural born citizenship to such a person who DID acquire US citizenship at birth? Probably not. But that may be more a matter of perception of the individual in question than it is of pure law.

    Slartibartfast:
    While the courts have never ruled on it, it seems likely that they would have come the same conclusion that averagelawyer did: that it would be ridiculous if someone like John McCain were not found to be a natural born citizen.I also think that, in light of the first naturalization act declaring children to be natural born citizens and what the SCOTUS said about it in Minor v. Happersett about later naturalization acts having the same meaning, there is even precedent on which such a decision could be based.

  168. Dave B. says:
    October 10, 2015 at 9:15 pm  (Quote)

    The “quirks in the law” to which Doc referred are explained in this House report from just before Senator McCain was born:

    http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/hr_751303.pdf

    “Even children born within the limits of the Zone which is under the jurisdiction of the United States are not citizens.
    These children referred to born in Panama do not come within the statutes on citizenship as they only provide for children born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.
    The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution provides that children born of parents residing within the United States and subject to its,jurisdiction are citizens.
    Children of American parents in Canal Zone are not outside the jurisdiction of the United States, neither are they within the limits of the United States.”
    The “statutes on citizenship” referred to being Sec. 1993 of the Revised Statutes:

    “Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization.”

    Is that an infallible interpretation in the House report? I don’t think so. It’s just as possible to interpret the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,” which Congress used in US nationality law beginning in 1802 (oops, make that 1795) up to the Citizenship Act of 1934, to be the equivalent of the phrase “outside of the United States and its outlying possessions” which replaced it beginning with the Nationality Act of 1940. That’s where I think averagelawyer’s
    “rule of legal interpretation routinely applied to writings: it is presumed that drafters do not intend absurd results, consequently, courts will reject any interpretation that leads to an absurd result”
    comes through for McCain.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    While perhaps not stated quite that way, I think the Tribe/Olson report on McCain had the same idea. Chin argues that McCain was not a US citizen at the time of his birth due to quirks in the law. However he was a citizen at birth retroactively. One federal judge in California (Robinson v. Bowen) said McCain was likely eligible.

  169. bob says:
    October 10, 2015 at 10:40 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    Thus, we will soon see it Re-submitted so if it is to be buried, it can have a “proper burial”

    If Judy resubmits his cert. petition, SCOTUS will refuse to accept it because the time to seek cert. has long since passed.

    But Judy will continue to think that his case being “considered closed” means he was correct.

  170. Rickey says:
    October 10, 2015 at 11:17 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:

    Thus, we will soon see it Re-submitted so if it is to be buried, it can have a “proper burial”.

    As Bob has noted, you’re too late to resubmit. Rule 13 controls:

    Rule 13. Review on Certiorari: Time for Petitioning

    1. Unless otherwise provided by law, a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort or a United States court of appeals (including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) is timely when it is filed with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment. A petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a judgment of a lower state court that is subject to discretionary review by the state court of last resort is timely when it is filed with the Clerk within 90 days after entry of the order denying discretionary review.

    2. The Clerk will not file any petition for a writ of certiorari that is jurisdictionally out of time. See, e. g.,28 U. S. C. § 2101(c).

    5. For good cause, a Justice may extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days.

    It appears that the Court of Appeals issued its judgment on February 27, 2015. This means that you had until May 28 to file your petition.

    Although you filed a pile of papers masquerading as a petiton for a writ of certiorari on March 30, 2015, the Supreme Court technically never accepted it because you were denied in forma pauperis status. You were then provided with a new deadline date of July 13, 2015, which was within the 60 days permitted by Rule 13 (5). You failed to meet the new deadline date. Your cert petition was not denied only because it was never accepted.

    It has now been more than seven months since the Court of Appeals issued its judgment, so by Rule 13 you are barred from filing another petition. You don’t get a do-over.

    I second the suggestion by others that you would be well advised to devote your energies to some productive pursuits. You are going to turn 50 in December and by your own admission you are living below the Federal poverty level. Unfortunately, you are delusional and you have convinced yourself that you have been doing something important.

  171. Slartibartfast says:
    October 10, 2015 at 11:47 pm  (Quote)

    You misunderstand my point. No one is questioning that McCain was retroactively born a citizen—only whether or not that makes him natural born. It is calling him born a citizen but not natural born that is ridiculous and contradicts Minor (or maybe Wong Kim Ark) which says that while the words changed, the meaning of the naturalization acts did not (meaning that the declaration of foreign-born citizens as natural born in the first naturalization act did not change). I’m not saying this is air-tight, but it seems a pretty solid argument to me.

    Dave B.:
    I think a court would arrive at the same conclusion, but definitely by a different route.The legislative and judicial histories are pretty plain that having a parent serving in the US military is not by itself sufficient to make someone a US citizen.For example, in 1946, Congress (60 Stat. 708) added subsection (i) to Sec. 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940:
    http://legisworks.org/congress/79/publaw-571.pdf
    to provide for children of US military personnel who had NOT been born US citizens under the unamended Nationality Act.Congress obviously has the power to deny or confer citizenship “to one born to a serving member of the armed forces because the child was born while the parent was serving this nation abroad” depending on whether the circumstances of that birth meet the statutory requirements Congress has set; the courts have had no qualms about deferring to Congress’s constitutional authority to set such requirements.
    And does the United States consider non-diplomatic foreign military officers present in the United States to not be subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
    Now would Congress or the courts– or the public– deny natural born citizenship to such a person who DID acquire US citizenship at birth?Probably not.But that may be more a matter of perception of the individual in question than it is of pure law.

  172. chancery says:
    October 11, 2015 at 1:48 am  (Quote)

    Pete:
    Finally, there is the consideration that any court case would most likely involve a candidate with a real chance of winning the Presidency. Such a candidate would be well-respected and have the backing of millions, if not tens of millions, of Americans. In fact, by the time such a case reached the Supreme Court, he or she would likely be the official nominee of either the Democratic or Republican Party. SCOTUS would be very unlikely to throw up a roadblock to the people’s choice of a President unless there was some very compelling reason to do so.

    That’s a thoughtful, reasonable argument. Unfortunately, Bush v. Gore made it clear that it’s not necessarily a correct prediction of what justices who are members of the Republican Party would do.

  173. Pete says:
    October 11, 2015 at 2:44 am  (Quote)

    It’s always possible that justices of either party could simply vote along party lines. Hopefully not, though, since they are setting a precedent for future generations.

  174. CRJ says:
    October 11, 2015 at 12:21 pm  (Quote)

    Doc- you wanna win the bet that way?

    Here you go: “You were Right my Cert was NOT Denied, nor was it Granted… as of Oct 8th” (?)

    Does that feel good? I’m happy to admit the facts. There’s not much else to admit. There has been some procedural delays contributing to my Cert being granted I think we might all agree upon.
    ie.
    #SCOTUS heart of the allegation was politicalbias led [JUDGE] to treat PARTY in blatantly [unfair] manner. 14-9396 #birther @HouseJudiciary

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

  175. bob says:
    October 11, 2015 at 2:44 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    There has been some procedural delays contributing to my Cert being granted I think we might all agree upon.

    Judy’s cert. petition was not granted; to suggest otherwise would be a lie.

    And it will never be granted because Judy’s case is closed. Yet Judy lacks to ability to admit this basic fact.

  176. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 11, 2015 at 2:56 pm  (Quote)

    Me feel good? No. The bet was always intended for your benefit. I set the stakes so that your inevitable failure would require you to admit you were wrong, and perhaps in the tiniest way lead you back to a more reality-based view of life; however, you fudged the language and have welshed on the bet. You refused to take your medicine. That makes me feel bad. You leaving your fantasies behind would make me feel good.

    CRJ: Doc- you wanna win the bet that way?

    Here you go: “You were Right my Cert was NOT Denied, nor was it Granted… as of Oct 8th” (?)

  177. Rickey says:
    October 11, 2015 at 5:44 pm  (Quote)

    .

    CRJ:
    There has been some procedural delays contributing to my Cert being granted I think we might all agree upon.

    Procedural delays?

    What part of “Case considered closed” do you not understand?

  178. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 11, 2015 at 6:32 pm  (Quote)

    One more data point on my theory that Donald Trump’s support is largely from birthers:

    The Daily Beast has a new article: Trump’s No. 1 Fan is a Rickey-Martin-Hating Latina Birther.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/09/trump-s-no-1-fan-is-a-ricky-martin-hating-latina-birther.html

  179. Pete says:
    October 11, 2015 at 6:49 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Me feel good? No. The bet was always intended for your benefit. I set the stakes so that your inevitable failure would require you to admit you were wrong, and perhaps in the tiniest way lead you back to a more reality-based view of life; however, you fudged the language and have welshed on the bet. You refused to take your medicine. That makes me feel bad. You leaving your fantasies behind would make me feel good.

    He’s a birther. Birthers just… don’t… get it.

    If they did, they wouldn’t be birthers.

  180. RanTalbott says:
    October 11, 2015 at 8:11 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: One more data point on my theory that Donald Trump’s support is largely from birthers:

    Well, the polls have confirmed that 60+% of his supporters are birthers, so that’s “an established fact”.

    The part that’s subject to theorizing is whether that’s because of his birfering, and the expressed belief among some that he’d take it to the Oval Office and act to “root out and pounish the conspiracy”. It’s impossible to tell, without more polling (that’s not likely to be done), how many of them really believe that.

    Some of that support is due to his sharing of their loony dystopian worldview, not to birfering, per se. But that worldview is not unique to birthers, and held with varying degrees of intensity among them.

    My guess is that he’d lose about a third of his support if he came out and said he’s not really a birther, and maybe half that much if he announced that he is. But neither position is likely to be a net winner, so he’ll keep weaseling about it.

  181. chancery says:
    October 11, 2015 at 8:57 pm  (Quote)

    Pete:
    It’s always possible that justices of either party could simply vote along party lines. Hopefully not, though, since they are setting a precedent for future generations.

    Yeah, I hope so too. In fact I was trolling you a bit, for which I apologize. It’s just that the phrase “unlikely to throw up a roadblock to the people’s choice of a President unless there was some very compelling reason to do so” so sharply called to mind what happened in Bush v. Gore that I couldn’t resist.

  182. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 11, 2015 at 9:01 pm  (Quote)

    There is a story in the Book of Mormon about a tree that didn’t bear fruit. It parallels a story Jesus told, only in the BoM they kept working on the tree year after year, despite its failure.

    Pete: He’s a birther. Birthers just… don’t… get it.

  183. RanTalbott says:
    October 12, 2015 at 8:53 am  (Quote)

    An interesting tidbit that I had forgotten about, but popped up in the sidebar on a Birfoon report video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcvYsKKuwEM

    While on the Alex Jones show about a month after the LFBC release, Corsi bragged that Trump had just called him to ask for an update on what he planned to do. Wasn’t Trump still bragging at that point about how he had scored by getting Obama to release it?

    Also, when I followed the link to that video, others popped up with Corsi promoting Trump’s candidacy. I did not waste time watching them to see whether there was birfering involved.

  184. CRJ says:
    October 13, 2015 at 12:03 am  (Quote)

    The really sad part of #Democrats supporting #Trump Birtherism is they support TRUMP whose a Fraud Birther. That guy hasn’t filed skeet on your windshield and you all bemoan his supporters as 1/3 Birthers!

    Please.. SMH Your True Selves should be Celebrating Trump as THE FRAUD BIRTHER.

    You Reserve your gutter comments for true birthers , yet support Trump because he was what… Not dumb enough to actually back up his spewing rhetoric by filing in Court on Obama but Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal?

    Imagine for an instant my debate as a Democrat against R Trump… Along with rackn in half or a third of his supporters because I DID what Trump only spewed rhetoric about.

    If Trump wins … You can all expressly and handidly thank yourselves for keeping the FRAUD Birther Trump.. The truest one.

    To me, your all so dumb and stupid not to recognize Hillary’s Toast and the ONLY thing standing between a Trump PRESIDENCY now is your dim wittedness on the [natural born Citizen] clause which when Obama’s gone will only serve Republicans!

    I mean statistics are not looking good for Clinton.. By themselves the Country’s against a D President… Unless you use your head!

    Now, the REASON to become True Birthers now is to maintain Choice and Same Sex marriage and whatever else you appose about a Trump Presidency.. If you think much of Obama’s success is doomed with a Trump in the White House (?) the only way over him is Birtherism..the true action kind.. Not mealy mouth press conference kind.

    I’m telling you here and now, the only political weapon formidable against Trump is “true Birtherism”.. Because Trumps a FRAUD Birther!

    So you all just keep on critizing me.. And falling right into Trumps hands! You might as well stick VOTE4TRUMP yards signs up here and start supporting him like Birther Report is.. Because wither you choose to SEE it or not.. There’s very little difference now.

    Suck that lollipop! You anti Birther democrat losing sorry story tellers.. And see the truth in that parable while you wait for Clinton’s FBI Indictment because you know she’d did a hell of a lot worse than Petraus did.

    You know,.. I’m not sure your anti Birther stand is the best for the Country right now? I see it is well for Republicans Of which you can all proudly claim your prize.

    Welcome ….Rhinos …Live Here!

    (?) I’ve just never seen people who thought so much about me losing WHILE THEY WERE LOSING!!!

  185. CRJ says:
    October 13, 2015 at 12:29 am  (Quote)

    Obama (you) lost the House
    Obama (you) lost the Senate
    Now, your damn near ready to lose the Presidency..,all because Republicans are riding Obama like a horse through the desert.

    They are milking Obama for all he’s worth.

    All the Liberal SCOTUS’s might as well be handing Trump the Presidency!

    I mean , I know principle means a lot to you guys, but seriously are you really all Republicans? I say wtf are you doing..its plain as plain.

    I mean you’d have to really show me your voter registrations for me not to assume your all registered Republicans.

    I mean DWS is working her Dino brain as hard as she can to LOWER THE PROFITS and the Democratic Party standards with the General Public by supporting Trump!!!

    She’s his biggest Fan.. really! That’s what her actions are saying.

    I’m mean Democrats are SPUN without a “Real Birther” on that #DemDebate tomorrow and all the rest of the 5 Dem debates on Fri, Saturday, or Sunday.. They are Spun Losers and clueless!

    That’s just the Truth!

  186. Punchmaster via Mobile says:
    October 13, 2015 at 12:33 am  (Quote)

    Wow CRJ is extra whingy today. Someone forget to change him?

  187. CRJ says:
    October 13, 2015 at 12:59 am  (Quote)

    Yea, it’s hard when you actually “care” about CHOICE.. I Guess. You probably wouldn’t know..

    I have had mine unlawfully taken before.. Until you experience it you really don’t appreciate it.

    I’m very sorry to admit that.. But it’s true

    Before I went to Prison I was much like you guys not understanding what it is truly like to lose the COTUS.

    YOU MAY think it’s a hard at until a Guy like Trump crosses you and you poss him off. You got know Law that’s going to save you. Think about it man.

  188. CRJ says:
    October 13, 2015 at 1:12 am  (Quote)

    Sorry my IT’s acting up.. Can’t get to spell check fast enough

    YOU MAY think it’s a game until a Guy like Trump crosses you and you piss him off.

    You got no Law that’s going to save you. Think about it man.

  189. Pete says:
    October 13, 2015 at 1:14 am  (Quote)

    CRJ: I’m telling you here and now, the only political weapon formidable against Trump is “true Birtherism”.. Because Trumps a FRAUD Birther!

    …

    You know,.. I’m not sure your anti Birther stand is the best for the Country right now? I see it is well for Republicans Of which you can all proudly claim your prize.

    I can’t speak for anyone else here, as this is just a watering hole on the web, and watering holes on the web can attract all kinds of people.

    That said, I’m truly not anti-birther because I think being anti-birther advances some political position.

    I’m anti-birther because birtherism is an aromatic mixture of bullsh_t, misconceptions, and lies. And I frankly don’t think bullsh_t, misconceptions and lies in the public conversation does anything useful at all.

    All it does is drag the conversation down and pollute why people do things. It’s deceitful and manipulative. In that sense, it’s evil.

    If people want to disagree, there’s plenty to disagree on, and lots of substantive issues to debate, that really have something to be said on both sides of the issue.

    Are you for more government, or less? A more liberal style of governing, or more conservative? Reduce the deficit, or let it ride because you think we really need to spend all the money we’re spending? More gun control, or the staunch preservation of gun rights? Obama’s health care plan, or finding a different alternative?

    All of those are things on which intelligent people can disagree, and there’s probably something to be said for positions on both sides of the aisle.

    Birtherism, on the other hand, is total bullsh_t.

    I would rather have people talking about the real, substantive issues, than promoting and believing bullsh_t.

    You want to oppose Barack Obama or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz or Bobby Jindal? Fine. But do so for some valid reason, and know this: Any one of the above is Constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States.

    It’s not about politics. It’s about honesty, truth, being smart enough to recognize fairy tales, and wanting our politics to be based on reality and truth instead of being based on inane propaganda and bedtime stories taken out of Mother Goose.

  190. CRJ says:
    October 13, 2015 at 1:34 am  (Quote)

    Hey look at that! Another Trump Supporter has Spoken… Feeding right into Trumps trumpet.

    TRUMP didn’t file a GD Thing because he thought it was B.S. too. He just went half way up the dark hole to get your Support.

    Post your Trump4PRES sign Pete.. He did exactly as you advocated.

  191. CRJ says:
    October 13, 2015 at 1:45 am  (Quote)

    You probably had enough of me, but think about it…
    Just in case Vice President Joe Biden decides to enter the Democratic presidential race in the next day, CNN will be prepared. According to a CNN correspondent, the network hosting the first Democratic debate has a podium on hand for Biden.
    “In case of Biden break out podium number 6. Here it is folks,” says senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta on Twitter.

    You think Biden’s going anywhere with Trump as far as Debate ? That’s a sorry-ass-joke with this anti establishment 2016 crowd.

    Yes. Its True.. We are a very small crowd here.. But I believe in you guys. I do. Your an awesome bunch of guys truly remarkable in your time and talents.

    Look at that.. Finally went over 1,000 hits
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7d-FcfeCPlI

    You know IF DEMOCRATS were just using half their brain they would have invited me for that 6th Podium.. Just to take Trumps Birthers away from him.. Then squash me later.

    They don’t even have half a Brain though!

  192. Pete says:
    October 13, 2015 at 1:48 am  (Quote)

    Whether I supported Trump or not (he’s a moron, and I certainly don’t), it wouldn’t matter anyway.

    He’s not going to get the nomination, and if by some miracle he does, he’s not going to win.

    And if by some miracle Donald Trump is our next (cough, cough) President, well, that will be a tragedy. Because he is, as I say, a moron.

    But I personally still will not regret having stuck with the truth over political bullsh_t.

    What’s telling, Cody, is your response. It’s very birtherish, but at least it’s honest birtherish.

    Your response basically says, “I don’t care the slightest bit about the actual truth. What I care about is whether a story – true or false, doesn’t matter – can be used to make political points.”

    Well, there’s the difference between birthers and me.

  193. CRJ says:
    October 13, 2015 at 1:59 am  (Quote)

    Well Pete.. Score Card for a principle ZERO WINS.
    LOST HOUSE
    LOST SENATE
    LOST PRESIDENCY
    LOST CHOICE

    maintain your Principles in Prison Dude and praise Jesus for the 72 virgins of anti -Birtherism which actually counted against our National Security when you go.

    Praise Allah Praise Jesus praise Tom Cruise and praise Oprah Winfrey.. Praise your own wisdom divine for all I care, And most of all kiss your last good choice in the Toilet and flushed 😳

    Let me tell you a little something about Republicans holding a 🔑 key to your Cell. They do not have ANY mercy Dude. You want to know why I run as a Democrat and lose overwhelming in Utah., Republicans have no Mercy.

  194. Keith says:
    October 13, 2015 at 2:05 am  (Quote)

    CRJ: Just in case Vice President Joe Biden decides to enter the Democratic presidential race in the next day, CNN will be prepared.

    And your point is… what exactly?

    That somebody at a TV network is professional enough to think ahead? They probably have a couple of extras in case somebody accidentally drops a spotlight on one of them during a sound/light check.

    I don’t think you need to worry about Biden showing up at the last minute. He’ll be welcome, I’m sure, but if he decides to jump in, he will give him self a few days of ramp up before he joins the debate club.

    But never-you-mind about that, because we all know that everyone who will be there is afraid of you being up there with a podium because they all know that you is da master at da baiting game.

  195. CRJ says:
    October 13, 2015 at 2:20 am  (Quote)

    My point Keith is why don’t you just put up A Trump yard Sign here instead of faking it.(?)

    Save us the agony of death and complete and total destruction of the Democratic Party by those who pretend they care for CHOICE when they truly do not.

    I was thinking today.. Decided I didn’t want a women as CIC who has failed at every point in her life to Register for the Draft and failed to put forth Legislation Acting On that.

    Didn’t want someone whose cheated her whole life, so she could slide in the CIC Chair with out any commitment in the field of the Draft Registration.

    Why does she get to cheat? Every chance she gets? She’s making decisions now for 18 year old woman that she would have never made for herself at 18.

    That’s the biggest war-on- women I’ve ever witnessed. , and I don’t think Biden’s going to take advantage of pointing that out to everyone.

  196. Lupin says:
    October 13, 2015 at 2:40 am  (Quote)

    CRJ: I was thinking today..

    Surely you jest. It was probably gas.

  197. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    October 13, 2015 at 4:39 am  (Quote)

    CRJ: complete and total destruction of the Democratic Part

    RW’s already said before the 2012 elections that Obama so utterly “destroyed” the Democratic Party that nobody would vote for them again for decades. Yet Hillary leads almost all polls against potential GOP opponents.
    So keep living in your “any day now” fantasy.

    CRJ: She’s making decisions now for 18 year old woman that she would have never made for herself at 18.

    Whereas you prefer old men to make decisions for 18 year old women as the GOP is doing now?

    CRJ: I didn’t want a women as CIC […] making decisions now for 18 year old woman

    In case you missed it, “woman” is the singular and “women” is the plural.
    But a telling sign how wrongly your brain is wired.

    CRJ: praise Jesus for the 72 virgins of anti -Birtherism which actually counted against our National Security when you go

    Wow, that SCOTUS defeat really sends you on a downward spiral, doesn’t it?

  198. Lupin says:
    October 13, 2015 at 6:21 am  (Quote)

    I think the GOP so-called “smart money” (Addelson, Schwab, Ricketts, etc) is moving towards Rubio.

    If he is the GOP nominee, between Trump’s defeat (or third-party run) and the fact that the birfoons consider Rubio “ineligible” I can’t wait to taste their sweet bitter tears.

  199. Pete says:
    October 13, 2015 at 8:02 am  (Quote)

    Therein is Trump’s power. He can’t win, but he can screw things up for whoever the eventual Republican nominee is.

    Although he’s supposedly ruled out a third-party bid.

  200. Punchmaster via Mobile says:
    October 13, 2015 at 9:40 am  (Quote)

    Anyone else notice how quickly Orly swept her latest defeat under the rug. Not so much a good cry about how she’s gonna fight back. Just a deluge of random articles about Paul Ryan and other rants. Could it be that she has at last exhausted her options?

  201. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    October 13, 2015 at 10:43 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: and the fact that the birfoons consider Rubio “ineligible” I can’t wait to taste their sweet bitter tears.

    But Rubio birtherism will be boring. It’s only for the die-hards yapping about Vattel, and those have never amounted to much. The “convenience” birthers (read: smear campaign) like Trump were all about the birth certificate, and no such thing is in sight for Rubio (esp. since the Dems won’t go down that road).

    Pete: he can screw things up for whoever the eventual Republican nominee is

    Conspiracy mode on:
    Has anyone kept track which GOP contender he hasn’t viciously attacked yet?
    That elusive small club defines the candidates that actually have a chance of being nominated.

    Pete: Although he’s supposedly ruled out a third-party bid.

    Who knows? He’s never been a cut-and-dried Republican, so why would he try to help the party if he believes the only one who can help Murica is him?

    Punchmaster via Mobile: Could it be that she has at last exhausted her options?

    I guess she’s reached the “acceptance” phase – she knows she’s failed and there’s no way that’s ever gonna change.

  202. Punchmaster via Mobile says:
    October 13, 2015 at 11:05 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M (not logged in):
    I guess she’s reached the “acceptance” phase – she knows she’s failed and there’s no way that’s ever gonna change.

    I can see her accepting defeat, but never admitting it. Her ego wouldn’t allow that.

  203. bob says:
    October 13, 2015 at 11:44 am  (Quote)

    Punchmaster via Mobile:
    Anyone else notice how quickly Orly swept her latest defeat under the rug. Not so much a good cry about how she’s gonna fight back. Just a deluge of random articles about Paul Ryan and other rants. Could it be that she has at last exhausted her options?

    Taitz recently was on WOBC BTR, explaining how, under the Lindsay case, the California Secretary of State can (and, therefore, must) investigate candidates’ eligibility (and that the district court ruled Judd had standing to raise this claim). But she essentially admitted the 9th Circuit is going issue a “cockamamie” ruling that will deny her appeal.

    Taitz also moved to goalposts of getting Obama to after President Trump’s inauguration.

  204. Nightflyer says:
    October 13, 2015 at 12:16 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin:
    I always go back to the sign “Only children whose PARENTS are MEMBERS of the club are allowed to use the pool” [caps mine] to marvel at the willful inability of birthers to understand the very simple notion of a group plural.

    If you want to insure that both parents are concerned you must use BOTH or TWO — in French as in English. As it stands, this means — and is understood by 99.999999% of the population, as EITHER or ONE parent.

    I also note that while CRJ responded to virtually every other comment addressed at him, he utterly failed to respond (not that there is anything to debate) to the fact that three of your founding fathers did not object to the notion of a dual citizen president, making every subsequent claim about divided loyalties etc. complete rubbish.

    Yeah, but he also didn’t really respond to my question about what he was going to do, once elected president, about mass transit issues in this country, which are a fairly serious subject. I’d also like to know his stand on the economy, foreign policy, the environment, and other little things like that, as opposed to the massive issue of the contents and photocopying of President Obama’s birth certificate.

  205. Nightflyer says:
    October 13, 2015 at 12:19 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: But isn’t that likely to be true of any birther who keeps birfing?

    I frankly feel a bit sorry for people like Cody, like Nancy and like Paul Irey, all of whom have continued with the quixotic pursuits past the sell-by date. Actually, in each case, I’ve urged them to find something a bit more valuable to do with their lives. There are plenty of places where they could find something to do that really brings value to other people, and some better satisfaction to their own lives.

    I can tell you one thing. Some of the things they’re doing at the moment don’t really lead anywhere.

    So I still hope that Cody (and the others) will find something genuinely valuable to do. There are places where they are actually needed.

    Yeah, that’s the worst thing…the colossal waste of energy, time, and misguided talent. With all of the above, they could lead clean-up efforts in their community, help people find jobs, counsel youth and re-entering offenders (like I do), or even just give blood. But they’d rather spend their time wasting that of federal courts, and fighting internet wars with total strangers. What wasted lives.

    Well, “You can run on for a long time, but sooner or later God will cut you down.” — Johnny Cash.

  206. Punchmaster via Mobile says:
    October 13, 2015 at 12:55 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: frankly feel a bit sorry for people like Cody, like Nancy and like Paul Irey

    I won’t feel a shred of sympathy for any of them in their darkest hour. A number of birthers are also shooting hoaxers. F the lot of them to hell!

  207. Nightflyer says:
    October 13, 2015 at 1:33 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    Sorry my IT’s acting up.. Can’t get to spell check fast enough

    YOU MAY think it’s a game until a Guy like Trump crosses you and you piss him off.

    You got no Law that’s going to save you. Think about it man.

    Why should you care about how Trump does? Aren’t you going to be the next president of the United States? If anything, you should be out there trying to drain votes from Donald.

  208. bob says:
    October 13, 2015 at 3:06 pm  (Quote)

    Punchmaster via Mobile:
    Wow CRJ is extra whingy today. Someone forget to change him?

    CRJ:
    You know IF DEMOCRATS were just using half their brain they would have invited me for that 6th Podium.. Just to take Trumps Birthers away from him.. Then squash me later.

    Judy is upset that he wasn’t “invited” to the debate. Even though he failed to qualify BECAUSE HE IS AN UNKNOWN VANITY “CANDIDATE,” whose only accomplishment is filing a singular form. Which hundreds of others have done, including animals, fictional characters, and (of course) Deez Nuts, who is actually polling decently in some states. Unlike Judy who is not polling at all in any state. In fact, there’s no evidence that anyone voted for him in either 2008 or 2012.

    Meanwhile, Judy can’t produce his original IFP application he claims he filed with SCOTUS. What is Judy hiding?

    Judy’s case is closed, and will never be granted cert., but Judy can’t even be a man and honor the terms of his wager and write, “I lost the bet.”

  209. Notorial Dissent says:
    October 13, 2015 at 4:39 pm  (Quote)

    Calling Judy a vanity candidate is kind of like calling my long dead Siamese a vanity candidate, the cat incidentally even long dead is smarter by far than Judy, and much more pleasant, and still has exactly the same chances he does of really being a candidate, specifically NONE.

    The thing is, that it really doesn’t matter what Judy filed at USSC, there is nothing to say that their requirements or standards for IFP have to be or even are the same as the for district or appellate courts. I also suspect that Judy bungled the that filing just as he has bungled everything else he has ever done, not that it would have made any difference. I also suspect that they looked at his pile of steaming BS and decided that it didn’t meet requirements one way or another. Not that it would have really mattered, since there is really no likelihood that they would have done anything more than denied cert had it gotten that far. It was DOA at the two previous courts, and no reason to expect a different outcome, except if you are reality challenged, at the USSC. Crap is still crap no matter how it is dressed up, and his is largely illiterate incomprehensible crap so it really doesn’t go anywhere.

  210. Nightflyer says:
    October 13, 2015 at 4:46 pm  (Quote)

    bob:
    Judy is upset that he wasn’t “invited” to the debate.Even though he failed to qualify BECAUSE HE IS AN UNKNOWN VANITY “CANDIDATE,” whose only accomplishment is filing a singular form.Which hundreds of others have done, including animals, fictional characters, and (of course) Deez Nuts, who is actually polling decently in some states.Unlike Judy who is not polling at all in any state.In fact, there’s no evidence that anyone voted for him in either 2008 or 2012.

    Meanwhile, Judy can’t produce his original IFP application he claims he filed with SCOTUS.What is Judy hiding?

    Judy’s case is closed, and will never be granted cert., but Judy can’t even be a man and honor the terms of his wager and write, “I lost the bet.”

    I just want to see Judy’s platform…out of morbid curiosity.

  211. Nancy R Owens says:
    October 13, 2015 at 5:23 pm  (Quote)

    Especially since she’s too scared to talk to the forger which is me. On a side note, when will the Doc post to his other website? Nothing since July 22.

    http://www.gerbilreport.com/

    Punchmaster via Mobile: I can see her accepting defeat, but never admitting it. Her ego wouldn’t allow that.

  212. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    October 13, 2015 at 5:34 pm  (Quote)

    bob: Judy can’t even be a man and honor the terms of his wager and write, “I lost the bet.”

    Which goes right along with what was said earlier today, about how birthers can accept defeat, but are unable to admit it. CRJ has accepted defeat, but rather than admit it, he’s posting long screechy rants that amount to a bunch of movie newspaper filler text. But without the excitement of “New tax code under fire!”.

  213. Rickey says:
    October 13, 2015 at 7:55 pm  (Quote)

    Nightflyer: I just want to see Judy’s platform…out of morbid curiosity.

    You could try by previewing his book, which currently is ranked #9,544,071 at Amazon. But I should warn you that the prose in his book is as tortured as his posts here.

  214. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 14, 2015 at 12:17 am  (Quote)

    I’ve been thinking about that too. I have a title, “More BS.”

    Nancy R Owens: On a side note, when will the Doc post to his other website? Nothing since July 22.

  215. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    October 14, 2015 at 5:23 am  (Quote)

    bob: Taitz also moved to goalposts of getting Obama to after President Trump’s inauguration.

    I’ve often teased birthers with the allusion that any alleged birther figurehead whose actions appear to delay the issue (Taitz filing cases, A/Z promising to release stuff “soon”, hopes for a GOP landslide, now hopes for Trump becoming Prez) might actually be an Obot trying to keep them passive as long as possible. 🙂

  216. roadburner says:
    October 14, 2015 at 6:44 am  (Quote)

    i just had a quick look over at oily’s website, and there is a load of articles, but a distinct lack of comments.

    it would appear that she’s been abandoned by even the crazies who used to worship her

  217. Nightflyer says:
    October 14, 2015 at 9:51 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: You could try by previewing his book, which currently is ranked #9,544,071 at Amazon. But I should warn you that the prose in his book is as tortured as his posts here.

    I’ll take a look at the advertisement…and try to keep my breakfast down.

  218. Lupin says:
    October 14, 2015 at 9:57 am  (Quote)

    Punchmaster via Mobile: I won’t feel a shred of sympathy for any of them in their darkest hour. A number of birthers are also shooting hoaxers. F the lot of them to hell!

    One of the nauseating imbeciles on Gerbil Report has taken umbrage on a post I made here (not there, mind you!) about pre-WWII American supporters of Hitler being largely unpersecuted because of their skin color (unlike the Japanese-Americans),and has doubled down (along with a few of his cohorts) supporting American nazis.

  219. Lupin says:
    October 14, 2015 at 10:09 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M (not logged in): But Rubio birtherism will be boring. It’s only for the die-hards yapping about Vattel, and those have never amounted to much. The “convenience” birthers (read: smear campaign) like Trump were all about the birth certificate, and no such thing is in sight for Rubio (esp. since the Dems won’t go down that road).

    It’s started already.

    The Gerbils just had a fit when I pointed out that, according to a recent article on Politico, Adelson and other billionaires were shifting their $$ towards Rubio. They said it was all lies.

    One post got through; my subsequent replies with links got censored by the Great Gerbil himself. I guess i must be back on the blacklist.

  220. Nightflyer says:
    October 14, 2015 at 10:21 am  (Quote)

    Well, I looked at the advertisement and read the section of the book open for free.

    I kept my breakfast down. I couldn’t stop laughing.

    I don’t know what was funnier, the idiotic ideas or Mr. Judy’s absolute failure to write a coherent sentence, let alone spell a word properly.

    And he wants to be President of the United States.

    Cody: Some advice:

    It’s spelled “ballots.”

    AP style: Numbers below 10 are spelled out.

    “Resources” is spelled out.

    “Percent” instead of “%”

    “Liberties” is correct. Therefore, “Freedom’s” should also be “Freedoms,” as that’s plural, not possessive. (You did get through middle school English, right?)

    “The good Lord showed me these things in dreams…” I wouldn’t write that too much. It makes you look weird. Most men’s dreams involve them, Halle Berry, and the honeymoon suite of a Bahamas hotel, not the outbreak of nuclear war.

    “Modern’ day Prophecy” is not the correct usage.

    “Billion’s” is not correct. It’s plural, not possessive.

    Umm…you spent 3,018 days in jail for aggravated burglary? Isn’t that a felony? Doesn’t that disqualify you from holding federal office?

    Either stick to third-person narrative or first-person…switching between the two is confusing to the reader. First-person is best and less pompous.

    “Differant” is spelled “different.” If you can’t copy-edit, hire someone.

    At least he answers some questions on domestic issues. How he’s going to turn the country around and balance the budget at the same time doesn’t seem possible, and what that has to do with President Obama’s birth certificate is pretty bizarre.

    This guy’s elevator does NOT go up to the top floor.

  221. Pete says:
    October 14, 2015 at 12:09 pm  (Quote)

    Nightflyer: Most men’s dreams involve them, Halle Berry, and the honeymoon suite of a Bahamas hotel

    Hey! Not fair! How’ve you been monitoring what the good Lord’s been showing me in MY dreams?

  222. Pete says:
    October 14, 2015 at 12:28 pm  (Quote)

    And Cody:

    I had no idea you’d spent so much time in jail.

    It appears that part of your life is long behind you, and for that I salute you.

    And I’m certainly not going to fault you for having grand dreams, although the odds of your going from zero to President are frankly nil.

    Dreams are usually progressively realized. In other words, you start at the bottom and work your way up a ladder.

    If you have a family, those dreams need to include taking care of your family well financially, and that means doing something that you hopefully enjoy, but that you can make a good living at.

    I know a man who spent years in jail, whose life was changed by faith. Maybe some of the same situation as you.

    He will never be famous, but he’s doing good things with his life, including being a husband to his wife and doing a good job of raising two daughters.

    Real faith, though, will give you moral principles to stand on. I hate to say it, but when you talk about supporting things for the sake of their political effect, without regard to whether they’re true, I’m not seeing that.

    Maybe you need to rethink a couple of things.

    In any event, I hope your days of getting in trouble for bad actions and bad judgment are over. I wish you well.

  223. Nightflyer says:
    October 14, 2015 at 12:41 pm  (Quote)

    Pete: Hey! Not fair! How’ve youbeen monitoring what the good Lord’s been showing me in MY dreams?

    If it’s any consolation, my dreams involved me, Holly Robinson, Rae Dawn Chong, and a sprawling penthouse apartment on Central Park South. So they were somewhat different.

    It was tragic day for me when both ladies got married…

  224. Nightflyer says:
    October 14, 2015 at 12:42 pm  (Quote)

    Pete:
    And Cody:

    I had no idea you’d spent so much time in jail.

    It appears that part of your life is long behind you, and for that I salute you.

    And I’m certainly not going to fault you for having grand dreams, although the odds of your going from zero to President are frankly nil.

    Dreams are usually progressively realized. In other words, you start at the bottom and work your way up a ladder.

    If you have a family, those dreams need to include taking care of your family well financially, and that means doing something that you hopefully enjoy, but that you can make a good living at.

    I know a man who spent years in jail, whose life was changed by faith. Maybe some of the same situation as you.

    He will never be famous, but he’s doing good things with his life, including being a husband to his wife and doing a good job of raising two daughters.

    Real faith, though, will give you moral principles to stand on. I hate to say it, but when you talk about supporting things for the sake of their political effect, without regard to whether they’re true, I’m not seeing that.

    Maybe you need to rethink a couple of things.

    In any event, I hope your days of getting in trouble for bad actions and bad judgment are over. I wish you well.

    Now those words, Pete, I applaud sincerely and heartily. Well put.

    Redemption IS possible. I have learned that through faith.

  226. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 14, 2015 at 4:18 pm  (Quote)

    Or it makes him sound Mormon.

    Nightflyer: “The good Lord showed me these things in dreams…” I wouldn’t write that too much. It makes you look weird.

  227. Nightflyer says:
    October 14, 2015 at 4:31 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Or it makes him sound Mormon.

    Did I ever tell you about Gorden Borden? He was a bouncer at the Tabernacle, and he yelled at people.

    He was known as “Stormin’ Gordon Borden, the Morman Doorman.”

  228. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    October 14, 2015 at 4:49 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Arpaio toys?!?

    http://www.kpho.com/story/30234887/sheriff-joe-arpaio-featured-in-book-series-toy-line

    Wow, they really captured his dumpiness with that action figure. Its just as cheap and poorly put together as the genuine article!

  229. Pete says:
    October 14, 2015 at 5:47 pm  (Quote)

    Nightflyer: He was known as “Stormin’ Gordon Borden, the Morman Doorman.”

    Wow. Try saying THAT really fast 5 times!

  230. Pete says:
    October 14, 2015 at 5:48 pm  (Quote)

    Lemons is tweeting again, and the testimony sounds grim (AGAIN) for Arpaio & Co.

  231. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    October 14, 2015 at 6:18 pm  (Quote)

    Pete:
    Lemons is tweeting again, and the testimony sounds grim (AGAIN) for Arpaio & Co.

    I do get a good chuckle reading Lemon’s tweets.

    And for added lols, Cody finally did update his blog. He’s claiming that the DNC is ageist against him, ’cause he’s in his 40s and all the candidates at the debate are older than he is. I couldn’t write comedy this good if I tried! I must say though, as far as Photoshop goes, his stuff does look a lot better than BSE’s. Most of it is all surrealist looking, but its a cut above BSE’s “I made this in MS Paint!” crap.

  232. Arthur B. says:
    October 14, 2015 at 9:59 pm  (Quote)

    My new favorite Trump quotation (if memory serves):

    I can be very magnanimous when I have to be.

  233. Rickey says:
    October 14, 2015 at 10:39 pm  (Quote)

    Pete:

    If you have a family, those dreams need to include taking care of your family well financially, and that means doing something that you hopefully enjoy, but that you can make a good living at.

    As of 2008 CRJ was claiming to have three children living in Kansas (his wife divorced him) and four (apparently stepchildren) living with him in Utah and Nevada.

    He now claims to be living below the poverty level yet he wastes his energy and money on a hopeless effort to depose President Obama.

    He clearly has misplaced priorities.

  234. Rickey says:
    October 14, 2015 at 10:44 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:

    And for added lols, Cody finally did update his blog. He’s claiming that the DNC is ageist against him, ’cause he’s in his 40s and all the candidates at the debate are older than he is.I couldn’t write comedy this good if I tried!

    Martin O’Malley is only three years older than CRJ. And I doubt that the DNC has ever heard of CRJ, much less having any information on how old he is!

  235. Nightflyer says:
    October 15, 2015 at 9:45 am  (Quote)

    Pete: Wow. Try saying THAT really fast 5 times!

    Which is why I posted it!

  236. Nightflyer says:
    October 15, 2015 at 9:47 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: As of 2008 CRJ was claiming to have three children living in Kansas (his wife divorced him) and four (apparently stepchildren) living with him in Utah and Nevada.

    He now claims to be living below the poverty level yet he wastes his energy and money on a hopeless effort to depose President Obama.

    He clearly has misplaced priorities.

    Below the poverty level? Well, that’s going to put a little crimp in his media blitz…

  237. Pete says:
    October 15, 2015 at 10:45 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: He now claims to be living below the poverty level yet he wastes his energy and money on a hopeless effort to depose President Obama.

    It’s possible to escape from such things as poverty, but it often takes building good habits and believing you can do it.

    And sticking with your best job options, day after day, year after year until you get traction.

    And improving those job options when you can.

  238. Dave B. says:
    October 15, 2015 at 11:21 am  (Quote)

    Okay, the American News cesspool has finally come up with a link-worthy piece of satire:
    http://americannews.com/experts-expose-new-evidence-that-obamas-birth-certificate-really-is-forged-see-details/
    The “new evidence”?
    “There is one thing everyone can agree on: the document posted is on a PDF copy of a paper birth certificate.”

  239. Notorial Dissent says:
    October 15, 2015 at 3:24 pm  (Quote)

    I have a problem with ANYTHING Judy claims, he is reality and veracity challenged at the very least, and I quite frankly have a VERY hard time believing anything he says. So I particularly have problems with his current fit of pleading poverty.

  240. Nightflyer says:
    October 15, 2015 at 3:27 pm  (Quote)

    Notorial Dissent:
    I have a problem with ANYTHING Judy claims, he is reality and veracity challenged at the very least, and I quite frankly have a VERY hard time believing anything he says. So I particularly have problems with his current fit of pleading poverty.

    All these grifters and grubbers plead poverty, so that their marks will stick crowbars in their wallets and give more cash. Remember Jimmy Bakker and his manifold bimbos? Jimmy Lee Swaggart and the air-conditioned doghouse? Pat Robertson and the 700 Club? Oral Roberts saying he would die if he didn’t get money?

    And those are just the televangelists. Politicians are just as bad.

  241. Rickey says:
    October 15, 2015 at 8:52 pm  (Quote)

    Notorial Dissent:
    I have a problem with ANYTHING Judy claims, he is reality and veracity challenged at the very least, and I quite frankly have a VERY hard time believing anything he says. So I particularly have problems with his current fit of pleading poverty.

    It is suspicious that he has refused to post his motion for IFP status. What is he hiding?

    One thing I’m sure of is that he hasn’t made any money on his book.

  242. The Magic M (not logged in) says:
    October 16, 2015 at 10:42 am  (Quote)

    Arthur B.: I can be very magnanimous when I have to be.

    His magnanimousness is only surpassed by his magnanimosity.

  243. Pete says:
    October 16, 2015 at 12:50 pm  (Quote)

    More guano striking the rotating blades:

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-arpaio-failed-in-his-responsibility-says-private-investigator-7747105

    I’d say things are looking pretty brown.

  244. Rickey says:
    October 17, 2015 at 1:59 pm  (Quote)

    I’ve been checking out the Twitter feed during the past week, and tweets by “Alex Hamilton” and “Dirk Derdorian” sound an awful lot like Sven.

  245. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 17, 2015 at 2:34 pm  (Quote)

    Updated site statistics are now posted; however, Microsoft is having a problem serving embedded Excel spreadsheets from OneDrive right now. There is a workaround posted on the statistics page.

  246. CRJ says:
    October 17, 2015 at 2:50 pm  (Quote)

    [ Doc-There is a story in the Book of Mormon about a tree that didn’t bear fruit. It parallels a story Jesus told, only in the BoM they kept working on the tree year after year, despite its failure.]

    Perhaps the Story your refering to is in B.O.M Jacob CH. 5 (?) it’s quite a long chapter and is referenced authored by Zenos considered a Prophet of Israel not found in the Bible.

    Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 11:17-25 about it, but you referenced Jesus talking about it in Parable I presume to be the parable of the fig tree. Mark 13:28 ; Luke 21:29 (?)

    Comparing them is like comparing the simplicity of addition to the complications of calculus. In jesting of course without referencing or proper attribution your comment seen more as a complex conglomeration to disparage both text in summary judgement of similarities that exist but are far removed.

    With a Masters in Mathmatics the probabilities don’t add up. . but you do bring up an interest in the subject of husbandry and all its complications and parallels.

    Jacobs account of Zenos is fantastic! Put simply it’s a terrific story of the Lord’s efforts to do everything in his power for his children over all the earth.

    The terrific examples of doing this and doing that , in other words changing parts of the equasion or problem to get a desired goal or the same answer.

    It brings for me the interest of Love God truly has for all of us.

    Thank you Pete for the heartful sentiment of my doing time in prison. Thank you Andrew for the compliments on graphics.

    I’m never quite sure about the expectations of a President never mis-spelling a word as particularly a parallel of widom and understanding. And we are still waiting I suppose to see the wonderful presentations of the “Harvard Law Review President ” and the thousands of words he penned.

    Yes, money and time does enable a lot of things, but it’s rather a poor assumption I should have rather “paid” someone to spell check rather than put out something that could be understood but wasn’t technically correct.

    Of course Time is a precious resource we do not have the luxury over ,yet, and that is probably much more my complaint in mis spells than money. I’m not alone in that complaint.

    What a wonderful illustration of FAITH became Docs defense in stating it wouldn’t matter if they “Saw” the L.F birth CERTIFICATE in the Hawaui Vault ( or is that Fault (?) I get the two confused at times but REP. Pelosi did two , one for Hawaii and one for the other 49 to for some reason the same day. )

    That’s what people have said about the B.O.M., Show us the Gold Plates and we will believe. Well, it doesn’t work that way. Indeed, a bit of FAITH is required for just about everything it seems. It is amazing what happens when we let that kernel or seed of FAITH work for us, instead of working so hard against it.

    Yes, I might be Doc with more understanding about Obama than anyone, I might be Trump with 10 Billion three quarters of which was made during the last 6.5 years, but I’m not. I’m just me , my Facts included.

    Now, the interesting score about Jacob’s account of Demos is the remarkable twist and turns that take place with just a few variables being changed.
    Cont..

  247. Bonsall Obot says:
    October 17, 2015 at 2:56 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: It is suspicious that he has refused to post his motion for IFP status. What is he hiding?

    And why has he spent millions hiding it?

  248. CRJ says:
    October 17, 2015 at 3:29 pm  (Quote)

    Now, I’m not a Mormon any longer, but I certainly am an underdog and also most certainly am a defender of the poor who under equal circumstances of practicle ethics in work are not treated fairly and equally under the Law.

    This seems to escape many here’s assertions that THREE COURTS of LAW , the U.S. Supreme Court in ’12, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in ’14 and the District Court in ’14 all granted my forma pauperis Motion.

    Yet, the clamour “What is Judy hiding?” this is not logical or statitically probable. Its beyond “Faith”.

    Are you prepared to pay me to Show you my IFP Motion when you would not contribute a dime to PRINT and Pay the Cert Cost?

    That’s the question and it pretty well is answered by your own lack of contributions.

    Getting back to Jacob’s account of Zenos a most interesting question is asked by the Lord of the vinyard to his servant in JACOB 5: 47-48

    The Lord goes through the list of all he has done in the past to redeem his orchard and produce good fruit for his store.

    He asks the Q- Who is it that has corrupted my vineyard?

    Doesn’t he know Who? Why is it not a “What corrupted ? ” or ” Why? ”

    The servant answers the Masters question with a guessing question of probability.

    He says, ” Is it not the loftiness of the vineyard- have not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves. Behold, I say , is not this the cause that the trees of thy vineyard have become corrupted? ”

    Well, if we inserted the Reason for the “natural born Citizen” clause as to exclude foreign influence, and understood “Citizen” was the definition qualification for those who fought the Revolution because a new crop of born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents needed ‘time’, we understand the Root Or Foundation.

    As we see the tops of the trees have indeed grown or out paced the Root. Obama was not [Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] and has introduced a Foreign Influence that really none of the Top Branches have objected to in their bully pulpits or top jobs.

    Of course STANDING was a problem , but they did make a choice not to support someone who did have standing and a Bi-Partisan Federal Court Record on the Principle Root that was introduced to produce good Fruit. This was the FOUNDATION of the U.S. Constitution.

    Now, the Master is ready to end it, but the servant says, WAIT!… Just a little longer please. And they make some changes.

    It pays off., the vineyard is turned around with a reversal and great joy is known and good fruit once again produced when it seemed a LOST cause.

    Well, no orchard last forever and Christians do believe a cleansing Fire is coming just as the Flood babtized the earth, The Fire represents the baptism or confirmation of the Holy Ghost.

    It’s a process of a consuming light where no work in the darkness can hide.

  249. bob says:
    October 17, 2015 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    This seems to escape many here’s assertions that THREE COURTS of LAW , the U.S. Supreme Court in ’12, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in ’14 and the District Court in ’14 all granted my forma pauperis Motion.

    And? A court — certainly not the U.S. Supreme Court — is not bound by another court’s granting of IFP status. Circumstances can change over time.

    The reader can’t judge whether SCOTUS blew it until Judy posts his original application.

    More basically: Why won’t Judy just post the original IFP application he claimed he filed with the U.S. Supreme Court? Judy knows how to post other documents (an act that will cost him nothing); his refusal to post this one (without being paid) is … curious.

    As we see the tops of the trees have indeed grown or out paced the Root. Obama was not [Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] and has introduced a Foreign Influence that really none of the Top Branches have objected to in their bully pulpits or top jobs.

    Your nonsensical beliefs have no basis in the law. As the judge explained to YOU in your case in Georgia: birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.

    Of course STANDING was a problem , but they did make a choice not to support someone who did have standing and a Bi-Partisan Federal Court Record on the Principle Root that has produced good Fruit.

    Individuals who complete a single form do not have standing. Especially those for which there is no evidence anyone voted for them in 2008 or 2012.

  250. Rickey says:
    October 17, 2015 at 4:30 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:

    This seems to escape many here’s assertions that THREE COURTS of LAW , the U.S. Supreme Court in ’12, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in ’14 and the District Court in ’14 all granted my forma pauperis Motion.

    Being granted IFP status a hundred times does not entitle you to it in perpetuity. You have to qualify for it every time you file a motion for it.

    Are you prepared to pay me to Show you my IFP Motion when you would not contribute a dime to PRINT and Pay the Cert Cost?

    Why should anyone pay you? You uploaded your cert petition and your motion for reconsideration on Scribd, and nobody paid you to do that. Why are you afraid to let us see your IFP motion?

  251. CRJ says:
    October 17, 2015 at 8:57 pm  (Quote)

    Well mostly, because if 3 Court’s of Law won’t do it for you, I don’t think you have much FAITH in me and as HRC said, “At this point and time.. What difference will it make?”

    What would you do if I was right and the 3 Courts were right?

  252. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    October 17, 2015 at 8:59 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ: I’m not a Mormon any longer

    But you are still a moron. That condition is apparently permanent.

  253. bob says:
    October 17, 2015 at 9:50 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    What would you do if I was right and the 3 Courts were right?

    Three courts may have been correct in granting IFP status to Judy in the past, but that does not mean Judy is presently entitled to IFP status. As things can change.

    To evaluate his claim, all Judy would have to do is post his original IFP application. A task that is both easy and free (he’s done it with numerous other documents).

    Yet Judy refuses to do this simple, trivial task, which would show that he’s right as well.

    Raising the obvious question: What is Judy hiding?

  254. Pete says:
    October 17, 2015 at 11:37 pm  (Quote)

    Well, if we inserted the Reason for the “natural born Citizen” clause as to exclude foreign influence…

    I think it’s obvious that the clause was put there to exclude some form of “foreign influence.” The question is: What kind?

    The Founders do not seem to have been the slightest bit concerned about persons born in this country, no matter what the national origin of their parents, and no matter whether their parents were or ever became US citizens. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be the slightest bit of evidence they considered such people to have any significant amount of “foreign influence.”

    Nor do the Founders seem to have been concerned about the children of US citizens, born United States citizens abroad, because the First Congress quite clearly indicated that such persons were to be eligible to the Presidency.

    Nor do they seem to have been concerned about children born here who moved overseas, received their entire education up to adulthood in a foreign country, and then moved back. How do I know? They wrote rules for Presidential eligibility that made it so a child could be born here, move abroad as an infant, receive his entire education in England or France or Russia, then move back at age 21, and at age 35 be elected President of the United States, having been a natural born citizen and lived 14 years in the United States.

    And they were clearly not concerned with an American serving as President who held dual citizenship with another country serving as President, because James Madison (and perhaps Thomas Jefferson as well) was uncontestedly elected President, and served as President, in those exact circumstances.

    So if they weren’t concerned about any of the above, who WERE they concerned about?

    Well, for one thing, they seem to have been concerned about American politicians being bought off with foreign money. That does seem to be a form of foreign influence they were concerned about.

    I submit, however, that they were mostly concerned about someone in places like England, especially from among the existing nobility and princes, who had vast amounts of foreign money behind them, and the aura of nobility or royalty, moving to the United States and taking over from within.

  255. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 18, 2015 at 12:50 am  (Quote)

    We really don’t have to make an inference. The term “natural born” is a term of art in English law, the law with which the Framers were familiar, and whose terms they used to write the Constitution. A natural born English subject was an English subject from birth. Using “natural born” means specifically that they were concerned about when someone became a citizen, and they added the 14-year residency requirement to insure some familiarity with the country.

    Pete: Nor do the Founders seem to have been concerned about the children of US citizens, born United States citizens abroad, because the First Congress quite clearly indicated that such persons were to be eligible to the Presidency.

  256. Pete says:
    October 18, 2015 at 4:28 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: We really don’t have to make an inference. The term “natural born” is a term of art in English law, the law with which the Framers were familiar, and whose terms they used to write the Constitution. A natural born English subject was an English subject from birth. Using “natural born” means specifically that they were concerned about when someone became a citizen, and they added the 14-year residency requirement to insure some familiarity with the country.

    Oh, I agree. But there’s a basic birther doctrine that says, hey, the Founders wanted to eliminate all foreign influence, so that’s why they put in the natural born citizen clause. Therefore, they meant that being a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents and birth on US soil.

    I was simply showing that just isn’t the case.

  257. Lupin says:
    October 18, 2015 at 9:56 am  (Quote)

    CRJ: if we inserted the Reason for the “natural born Citizen” clause as to exclude foreign influence,

    That is obviously untrue. While Monroe did raise a few objections, we have the written words of Paine, Jefferson and Madison totally saying the opposite of what you claim.

    I have already debunked your claim before and repeating it just does not make it any truer.

    You’re wrong on facts; you’re wrong about the law.

  258. Rickey says:
    October 18, 2015 at 1:04 pm  (Quote)

    CRJ:
    I don’t think you have much FAITH in me

    That is the understatement of the year.

    What would you do if I was right and the 3 Courts were right?

    If you can demonstrate that you filed a proper motion for IFP, which means that you provided all of the financial information which SCOTUS requires, and it shows that you could not afford to pay the filing fee and associated expenses, I would perhaps sympathize with you.

    However, you have to understand that there is no right or wrong. Whether to grant IFP status or not is solely at the discretion of the Court.

  259. Dave B. says:
    October 18, 2015 at 1:45 pm  (Quote)

    In a development shockingly unrelated to Cody Robert Judy, this just turned up on Scribd:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/285694617/USCA5C-Doc-15-41276-in-Re-Natural-Born-Citizen-Party-National-Committee-Petition-for-Mandamus#scribd

  260. Dave B. says:
    October 18, 2015 at 1:49 pm  (Quote)

    Even more shocking developments that have nothing to do with Cody Robert Judy:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/10/448460-whats-story-behind-democrats-trolling-ted-cruz-canada/

    “Ted Cruz’s birthplace and eligibility for the office of the president has been a topic of conversation among many Democrats ever since he began hinting at a run for the White House:”

    followed immediately by a screenshot of a tweet by Robert C. Laity. And famous Democratic operative shows up in the comments to troll Ted Cruz.

  261. Dave B. says:
    October 18, 2015 at 2:01 pm  (Quote)

    Oh dear, how did I leave out the name of that famous Democratic operative– Mario Apuzzo?

  262. bob says:
    October 18, 2015 at 2:04 pm  (Quote)


    http://www.scribd.com/doc/285694617/USCA5C-Doc-15-41276-in-Re-Natural-Born-Citizen-Party-National-Committee-Petition-for-Mandamus#scribd

    Strunk is the Last Birfer Standing: Only Strunk has an active birfer case at the trial-court level. (Taitz has two active trial-level cases, but neither birfs; her one appellate-level birfer case is about to go away.)

  263. Rickey says:
    October 18, 2015 at 5:35 pm  (Quote)

    bob: Strunk is the Last Birfer Standing: Only Strunk has an active birfer case at the trial-court level.(Taitz has two active trial-level cases, but neither birfs; her one appellate-level birfer case is about to go away.)

    Are you sure that Strunk has an active birther case in a trial court? All of his New York cases are closed, so I’m not sure what case you are referring to.

  264. Rickey says:
    October 18, 2015 at 5:53 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Even more shocking developments that have nothing to do with Cody Robert Judy:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/10/448460-whats-story-behind-democrats-trolling-ted-cruz-canada/

    “Ted Cruz’s birthplace and eligibility for the office of the president has been a topic of conversation among many Democrats ever since he began hinting at a run for the White House:”

    followed immediately by a screenshot of a tweet by Robert C. Laity.And famous Democratic operative shows up in the comments to troll Ted Cruz.

    Unsurprisingly, Laity is registered to vote as a Republican.

  265. Rickey says:
    October 18, 2015 at 5:56 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    In a development shockingly unrelated to Cody Robert Judy, this just turned up on Scribd:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/285694617/USCA5C-Doc-15-41276-in-Re-Natural-Born-Citizen-Party-National-Committee-Petition-for-Mandamus#scribd

    The petition by Strunk’s pal includes this:

    “And further, a mandamus including an immediate consolidation before judgment with the pending SCOTUS certiorari amnesty matter: ‘Arpaio v. Obama’ USCA DCC 14-5325.”

    A cert petition has not been filed with SCOTUS in Arpaio v. Obama. Maybe he means that the filing of a cert petition is pending?

  266. Pete says:
    October 18, 2015 at 9:38 pm  (Quote)

    Arrest and Prosecute false “Dr Cospiracy” NOW.
    WTP demand it!

    — drdebdrdeb
    — Comment at Birther Report, Oct. 18, 2015

    This is why I say that birthers, for the most part, are evil people.

    Freedom of speech for them, prison or worse for others.

    They are the same people who used to shoot the corpses of men and women who had been lynched.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.