obama birth certificate: Report: 10th Circuit Court Justices Will Conduct Poll On Obama Article II

are you satisfied that eligibility is settled law ??

  • yea

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • nea

    Votes: 2 66.7%

  • Total voters
    3

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,971
Reaction score
7,144
Points
1,130
eligibility is a fast growing topic of interest... apparently.
Report: 10th Circuit Court Justices Will
Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case


Read more at Report 10th Circuit Court Judges Will Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case - Birther Report

quickie usmess poll now.
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
 
OP
washamericom

washamericom

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,257
Points
245
eligibility is a fast growing topic of interest... apparently.
Report: 10th Circuit Court Justices Will
Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case


Read more at Report 10th Circuit Court Judges Will Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case - Birther Report

quickie usmess poll now.
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
honestly i don't know
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,971
Reaction score
7,144
Points
1,130
eligibility is a fast growing topic of interest... apparently.
Report: 10th Circuit Court Justices Will
Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case


Read more at Report 10th Circuit Court Judges Will Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case - Birther Report

quickie usmess poll now.
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
 

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
30,915
Reaction score
6,926
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
Now nothing at all says a quadroon can't actually be American.

Of course nothing legitimate produced so far says the one in focus is.
 
OP
washamericom

washamericom

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,257
Points
245
eligibility is a fast growing topic of interest... apparently.
Report: 10th Circuit Court Justices Will
Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case


Read more at Report 10th Circuit Court Judges Will Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case - Birther Report

quickie usmess poll now.
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
and ??
 

Herodotus

Rookie
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
27
Reaction score
1
Points
1
eligibility is a fast growing topic of interest... apparently.
Report: 10th Circuit Court Justices Will
Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case


Read more at Report 10th Circuit Court Judges Will Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case - Birther Report

quickie usmess poll now.
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
 
OP
washamericom

washamericom

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,257
Points
245
eligibility is a fast growing topic of interest... apparently.
Report: 10th Circuit Court Justices Will
Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case


Read more at Report 10th Circuit Court Judges Will Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case - Birther Report

quickie usmess poll now.
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?
 

Herodotus

Rookie
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
27
Reaction score
1
Points
1
eligibility is a fast growing topic of interest... apparently.
Report: 10th Circuit Court Justices Will
Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case


Read more at Report 10th Circuit Court Judges Will Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case - Birther Report

quickie usmess poll now.
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?

Uh, sure. The grandfather clause came about because James Wilson was deeply offended that the delegates were discussing prohibiting foreign born persons from participating in Congress, or waiting a very long time before they were eligible. Governor Morris calmed Wilson down by suggesting that current citizens, even naturalized citizens, would be excluded from such rules which meant foreign born person such as Wilson would be eligible. No on suggested persons born in the colonies were not natural born as even Madison said one's primary allegiance was to the community one was born in, i.e., the colony, not England. At this point they were discussing Congressional eligibility when the draft Constitution said Congress would choose the President. No one mentioned Vattel or parentage. Anyway, I challenge you to find any early legal authority that said the grandfather clause applied to anyone but the foreign born. Please provide the quote. LOL. Here from perhaps the most famous Justice in our history:

"It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73 (1833)

How many more quotes would you like? Can you find anyone saying otherwise. An interesting fact is that Maine had an NBC clause for governor without a grandfather clause and its first couple o governors were born prior to 1776 in the Colonies. No on suggested they were not natural born. Seems you have no idea what such term meant.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,971
Reaction score
7,144
Points
1,130
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?

Uh, sure. The grandfather clause came about because James Wilson was deeply offended that the delegates were discussing prohibiting foreign born persons from participating in Congress, or waiting a very long time before they were eligible. Governor Morris calmed Wilson down by suggesting that current citizens, even naturalized citizens, would be excluded from such rules which meant foreign born person such as Wilson would be eligible. No on suggested persons born in the colonies were not natural born as even Madison said one's primary allegiance was to the community one was born in, i.e., the colony, not England. At this point they were discussing Congressional eligibility when the draft Constitution said Congress would choose the President. No one mentioned Vattel or parentage. Anyway, I challenge you to find any early legal authority that said the grandfather clause applied to anyone but the foreign born. Please provide the quote. LOL. Here from perhaps the most famous Justice in our history:

"It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73 (1833)

How many more quotes would you like? Can you find anyone saying otherwise. An interesting fact is that Maine had an NBC clause for governor without a grandfather clause and its first couple o governors were born prior to 1776 in the Colonies. No on suggested they were not natural born. Seems you have no idea what such term meant.
Wonderfully sourced. But you're kinda missing the point with all your 'facts' and 'quotes' and 'evidence'.

You need to feel. You need to believe. Thinking as much as you just did will only muddle things.
 

Herodotus

Rookie
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
27
Reaction score
1
Points
1
eligibility is a fast growing topic of interest... apparently.
Report: 10th Circuit Court Justices Will
Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case


Read more at Report 10th Circuit Court Judges Will Conduct Poll On Obama Article II Ineligibility Case - Birther Report

quickie usmess poll now.
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?

Wong Kim Ark is not that hard. I suggest you go to a real Constitutional lawyer or look at a real Constitutional treatise that can explain it to you. The birther interpretation, which has been rejected and laughed at by court after court after court, I believe it is 11 at this point, just makes you people look stupid. Every modern court and mainstream legal scholar has said the birther interpretation is wrong, but such doesn't matter to you people. Just like the sovereign citizens, you will keep saying everyone is wrong and you are right because you say so, which means nothing. If you are not smart enough to read the long majority opinion, you can read the dissent which summarizes what the majority said before it disagreed with it. The dissent said it disagreed with the majority that both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were based upon the English definition of natural born subject. Of course, that is exactly what he majority said as well as all subsequent case law on the subject. Anyone who says the court distinguished between an NBC and a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment never read, or is not smart enough to understand, the case. If you cannot understand that, go hire an actual attorney to explain it to you.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,971
Reaction score
7,144
Points
1,130
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?

Wong Kim Ark is not that hard. I suggest you go to a real Constitutional lawyer or look at a real Constitutional treatise that can explain it to you. The birther interpretation, which has been rejected and laughed at by court after court after court, I believe it is 11 at this point, just makes you people look stupid. Every modern court and mainstream legal scholar has said the birther interpretation is wrong, but such doesn't matter to you people. Just like the sovereign citizens, you will keep saying everyone is wrong and you are right because you say so, which means nothing. If you are not smart enough to read the long majority opinion, you can read the dissent which summarizes what the majority said before it disagreed with it. The dissent said it disagreed with the majority that both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were based upon the English definition of natural born subject. Of course, that is exactly what he majority said as well as all subsequent case law on the subject. Anyone who says the court distinguished between an NBC and a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment never read, or is not smart enough to understand, the case. If you cannot understand that, go hire an actual attorney to explain it to you.
The Birther interpretation of natural born's meaning coming from Law of Nations is also a bit bizarre. As the term 'natural born' didn't appear anywhere in the English translation of Law of Nations until after the constitution was written. And the word they translated from French to mean 'natural born citizen' translates to 'indigenous'. Not natural born citizen.

So there's no plausible way without a delorian or a blue police box that the founders could have based their understanding of 'natural born citizen' on Vattel. Which leaves only English common law.

Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by several years.
 

Syriusly

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
54,851
Reaction score
7,126
Points
1,840
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?

Wong Kim Ark is not that hard. I suggest you go to a real Constitutional lawyer or look at a real Constitutional treatise that can explain it to you. The birther interpretation, which has been rejected and laughed at by court after court after court, I believe it is 11 at this point, just makes you people look stupid. Every modern court and mainstream legal scholar has said the birther interpretation is wrong, but such doesn't matter to you people. Just like the sovereign citizens, you will keep saying everyone is wrong and you are right because you say so, which means nothing. If you are not smart enough to read the long majority opinion, you can read the dissent which summarizes what the majority said before it disagreed with it. The dissent said it disagreed with the majority that both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were based upon the English definition of natural born subject. Of course, that is exactly what he majority said as well as all subsequent case law on the subject. Anyone who says the court distinguished between an NBC and a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment never read, or is not smart enough to understand, the case. If you cannot understand that, go hire an actual attorney to explain it to you.
The Birther interpretation of natural born's meaning coming from Law of Nations is also a bit bizarre. As the term 'natural born' didn't appear anywhere in the English translation of Law of Nations until after the constitution was written. And the word they translated from French to mean 'natural born citizen' translates to 'indigenous'. Not natural born citizen.

So there's no plausible way without a delorian or a blue police box that the founders could have based their understanding of 'natural born citizen' on Vattel. Which leaves only English common law.

Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by several years.
Well it is even more bizarre than that.

Because until Obama came along no one believed the Birther invention.

They literally had to convince themselves that they had discovered the 'true' meaning of Natural Born Citizen- which was different from what every American for the last 100 years has been taught- and then rewrite their personal history to create a narrative that this was what everyone else 'knows' but was ignoring.....usually because 'everyone was scared of race riots' if they mentioned the real definition.
 
OP
washamericom

washamericom

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,257
Points
245
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?

Uh, sure. The grandfather clause came about because James Wilson was deeply offended that the delegates were discussing prohibiting foreign born persons from participating in Congress, or waiting a very long time before they were eligible. Governor Morris calmed Wilson down by suggesting that current citizens, even naturalized citizens, would be excluded from such rules which meant foreign born person such as Wilson would be eligible. No on suggested persons born in the colonies were not natural born as even Madison said one's primary allegiance was to the community one was born in, i.e., the colony, not England. At this point they were discussing Congressional eligibility when the draft Constitution said Congress would choose the President. No one mentioned Vattel or parentage. Anyway, I challenge you to find any early legal authority that said the grandfather clause applied to anyone but the foreign born. Please provide the quote. LOL. Here from perhaps the most famous Justice in our history:

"It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73 (1833)

How many more quotes would you like? Can you find anyone saying otherwise. An interesting fact is that Maine had an NBC clause for governor without a grandfather clause and its first couple o governors were born prior to 1776 in the Colonies. No on suggested they were not natural born. Seems you have no idea what such term meant.
fascinating, thank you for that. you are a powerhouse of knowledge.

this takes me back to a happy time and place when this started:

Another Debate that Never Was Arduini v. Gillar April 5 2013 - Debunking the Lies - Fogbow Forum

and you've come up to birther speed in the days you have been here... outstanding !
 
Last edited:
OP
washamericom

washamericom

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,257
Points
245
So says a random blogspot blogger and convicted bomber 'Cody Robert Judy'.

Here's a question for you......why should I give a shit what Mr. Judy says? About....anything?

This is a guy who was found to have a delusion disorder from three different doctors while telling them that God sent him visions and told him to be the next Prophet of the Mormon church. Is Mr. Judy on his meds now?
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?
Wong Kim Ark is not that hard. I suggest you go to a real Constitutional lawyer or look at a real Constitutional treatise that can explain it to you. The birther interpretation, which has been rejected and laughed at by court after court after court, I believe it is 11 at this point, just makes you people look stupid. Every modern court and mainstream legal scholar has said the birther interpretation is wrong, but such doesn't matter to you people. Just like the sovereign citizens, you will keep saying everyone is wrong and you are right because you say so, which means nothing. If you are not smart enough to read the long majority opinion, you can read the dissent which summarizes what the majority said before it disagreed with it. The dissent said it disagreed with the majority that both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were based upon the English definition of natural born subject. Of course, that is exactly what he majority said as well as all subsequent case law on the subject. Anyone who says the court distinguished between an NBC and a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment never read, or is not smart enough to understand, the case. If you cannot understand that, go hire an actual attorney to explain it to you.
i think i just did. again thank you.

hey obama's a constitutional lawyer, could he explain WKA or minor v hapersett ??
 
Last edited:

Herodotus

Rookie
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
27
Reaction score
1
Points
1
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?
Wong Kim Ark is not that hard. I suggest you go to a real Constitutional lawyer or look at a real Constitutional treatise that can explain it to you. The birther interpretation, which has been rejected and laughed at by court after court after court, I believe it is 11 at this point, just makes you people look stupid. Every modern court and mainstream legal scholar has said the birther interpretation is wrong, but such doesn't matter to you people. Just like the sovereign citizens, you will keep saying everyone is wrong and you are right because you say so, which means nothing. If you are not smart enough to read the long majority opinion, you can read the dissent which summarizes what the majority said before it disagreed with it. The dissent said it disagreed with the majority that both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were based upon the English definition of natural born subject. Of course, that is exactly what he majority said as well as all subsequent case law on the subject. Anyone who says the court distinguished between an NBC and a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment never read, or is not smart enough to understand, the case. If you cannot understand that, go hire an actual attorney to explain it to you.
i think i just did. again thank you.

hey obama's a constitutional lawyer, could he explain WKA or minor v hapersett ??
You don't need to be a constitutional lawyer to explain these cases. I would think anyone who went to law school could do a simple case outline as such is what law students do. Not sure why everyone is so confused about Minor. First of all, the case doesn't discuss Virginia Minor's citizenship. Such was a stipulated fact conceded in the original pleadings. Hence, there is nothing in the record of the court, or the courts below, about the circumstances of her birth. It is pretty common for cases determining the rights of citizens to presume citizenship if such has been conceded. So what was Waite discussing? Minor's primary argument was that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment and hence had the right to vote under the Amendment's privileges and immunities clause. Waite's response was:

(1) Women have always been citizens as evidenced by:
(a) women have always been in the class of persons everyone agrees were natural born citizens,
(b) women have always been naturalized,
(c) women have always been treated as citizens for state laws of descent
(d) women have always been citizens for jurisdiction purposes
(e) women have always been citizens for Homestead Act purposes.

(2) Voting was never a privilege of citizenship

(3) The 14th amendment adds no privileges that did not exist before

(4) Therefore, the 14th Amendment does not bestow the right to vote on citizens

Not the strongest argument in the world for he gave no explanation as to why the 14th Amendment added no new privileges, the most import thing said in the case. Anyway, Waite did not have to definitely define who was a natural born citizen to make this argument and hence why it is dicta. It was just one example of women always being citizens so it clearly wasn't necessary to discuss at all. Nevertheless, he said it was unnecessary to determine the status of children of aliens as it was sufficient to show that women were included in the class of persons there was no doubt about for his purposes. Hence no legal authority has ever cited Minor with respect to the status of children of aliens other than to point out that the court declined to address such status. Hence, the losing side in Wong Kim Ark cited Minor to argue the issue was open to doubt. No one involved in such case suggested that Minor had defined the term with respect to children of aliens and no one ever will.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,971
Reaction score
7,144
Points
1,130
honestly i don't know
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?
Wong Kim Ark is not that hard. I suggest you go to a real Constitutional lawyer or look at a real Constitutional treatise that can explain it to you. The birther interpretation, which has been rejected and laughed at by court after court after court, I believe it is 11 at this point, just makes you people look stupid. Every modern court and mainstream legal scholar has said the birther interpretation is wrong, but such doesn't matter to you people. Just like the sovereign citizens, you will keep saying everyone is wrong and you are right because you say so, which means nothing. If you are not smart enough to read the long majority opinion, you can read the dissent which summarizes what the majority said before it disagreed with it. The dissent said it disagreed with the majority that both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were based upon the English definition of natural born subject. Of course, that is exactly what he majority said as well as all subsequent case law on the subject. Anyone who says the court distinguished between an NBC and a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment never read, or is not smart enough to understand, the case. If you cannot understand that, go hire an actual attorney to explain it to you.
i think i just did. again thank you.

hey obama's a constitutional lawyer, could he explain WKA or minor v hapersett ??
Minor v. Hapersett doesn't state that natural born citizens are only those born in the US and born to US parents. It says that those born in the US and born to US parents are certainly natural born citizens. And that others may be.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Minor V. Hapersett (1875)
No one contests that those born to US parents within the US are natural born citizens. What is being contested is that ONLY those born to US parents within the US are natural born citizens. And that's something that Minor. v. Hapersett never finds.
 
OP
washamericom

washamericom

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
11,973
Reaction score
1,257
Points
245
Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?
Wong Kim Ark is not that hard. I suggest you go to a real Constitutional lawyer or look at a real Constitutional treatise that can explain it to you. The birther interpretation, which has been rejected and laughed at by court after court after court, I believe it is 11 at this point, just makes you people look stupid. Every modern court and mainstream legal scholar has said the birther interpretation is wrong, but such doesn't matter to you people. Just like the sovereign citizens, you will keep saying everyone is wrong and you are right because you say so, which means nothing. If you are not smart enough to read the long majority opinion, you can read the dissent which summarizes what the majority said before it disagreed with it. The dissent said it disagreed with the majority that both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were based upon the English definition of natural born subject. Of course, that is exactly what he majority said as well as all subsequent case law on the subject. Anyone who says the court distinguished between an NBC and a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment never read, or is not smart enough to understand, the case. If you cannot understand that, go hire an actual attorney to explain it to you.
i think i just did. again thank you.

hey obama's a constitutional lawyer, could he explain WKA or minor v hapersett ??
You don't need to be a constitutional lawyer to explain these cases. I would think anyone who went to law school could do a simple case outline as such is what law students do. Not sure why everyone is so confused about Minor. First of all, the case doesn't discuss Virginia Minor's citizenship. Such was a stipulated fact conceded in the original pleadings. Hence, there is nothing in the record of the court, or the courts below, about the circumstances of her birth. It is pretty common for cases determining the rights of citizens to presume citizenship if such has been conceded. So what was Waite discussing? Minor's primary argument was that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment and hence had the right to vote under the Amendment's privileges and immunities clause. Waite's response was:

(1) Women have always been citizens as evidenced by:
(a) women have always been in the class of persons everyone agrees were natural born citizens,
(b) women have always been naturalized,
(c) women have always been treated as citizens for state laws of descent
(d) women have always been citizens for jurisdiction purposes
(e) women have always been citizens for Homestead Act purposes.

(2) Voting was never a privilege of citizenship

(3) The 14th amendment adds no privileges that did not exist before

(4) Therefore, the 14th Amendment does not bestow the right to vote on citizens

Not the strongest argument in the world for he gave no explanation as to why the 14th Amendment added no new privileges, the most import thing said in the case. Anyway, Waite did not have to definitely define who was a natural born citizen to make this argument and hence why it is dicta. It was just one example of women always being citizens so it clearly wasn't necessary to discuss at all. Nevertheless, he said it was unnecessary to determine the status of children of aliens as it was sufficient to show that women were included in the class of persons there was no doubt about for his purposes. Hence no legal authority has ever cited Minor with respect to the status of children of aliens other than to point out that the court declined to address such status. Hence, the losing side in Wong Kim Ark cited Minor to argue the issue was open to doubt. No one involved in such case suggested that Minor had defined the term with respect to children of aliens and no one ever will.
so it's settled law.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top