Whenever Things Got Slow In Swampy Acres, Gordon Would Launch Into His “Crazy Dance”
Well, Gordon Epperly, aka Yukon Jerk, filed another one of his silly Sovereign Sitizen-type lawsuits on June 24, 2012. This one is a Writ of Mandamus to force the State of Alaska to verify Obama’s eligibility in a timely fashion. On May 7, 2012 he filed an administrative complaint seeking this relief and wasn’t getting anywhere. Here is a copy of his latest nonsense, which saves the reader from having to re-read some of the same stuff he filed on May 7, 2012:
Here is a brief excerpt from The Tri-City Herald:
He also claims that Obama, by taking office, has committed a crime of trying to overthrow the U.S. government. Epperly is acting as his own attorney.
The lawsuit is seeking the state Division of Elections to obtain a physical, “verified” copy of Obama’s birth certificate.
Epperly also questions U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s right to run for federal office. He claims that as a woman, Pelosi has no inherent right to be a U.S. citizen or to hold office.
“There are no provisions in the Constitution of the United States that grants Women ‘Political Rights’ of Suffrage to hold any Political Office of the United States Government,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit was filed against Obama, Pelosi, the state’s election director and Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell, a Republican who oversees Alaska elections.
You should read the whole Internet Article above, because there are some really good opinions expressed about the suit.
Epperly made his first appearance at The Birther Think Tank last February when he filed a suit to declare Obama ineligible because of his race. Here is that first Internet Article:
Anyway, Epperly’s latest sashay into the judicial arena has now been removed to federal court. I suspect that Epperly’s pleadings will soon be dumped into the nearest garbage dump. I just hope some poor little innocent polar bears don’t eat the paper and choke on it. Or catch some kind of Mad Polar Bear Disease.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Note 1. Kabloony. This is a wordplay based on Kabloona. As Wiki says:
Kabloona is a book by French adventurer Gontran de Poncins, [about his travels among the Esquimaux] written in collaboration with Lewis Galantiere. It was first published in the USA in 1941 as a selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club (via Time-Life Books), in England in 1942, and in French (as a translation of the English version) in 1947. The book contains many drawings by the author and 32 pages of black-and-white photographs in the first edition. In the United States, where it was most popular, it is considered a classic of travel literature.
The title Kabloona is a transcription of the Inuktitut word nowadays spelled qallunaaq (qablunaaq in Inuinnaqtun). It is a term originally used to describe white Europeans – a reference to their qalluit, the bushy eyebrows that the Inuit saw as the distinctive feature of Europeans. Nowadays, its use is a bit vaguer. It can mean Anglo-Canadian in contrast to other ethnolinguistic groups like the uiviimiut – French Canadians. Alternately, it is used to describe non-Inuit Canadian society, or even occidental society as a whole. In the 1940s, however, Inuit made fewer of those distinctions, and the term could easily apply to Poncins despite his French ethnicity.
Note 2. Pas De Folie Adieu. A pigdin French double pun on “pas de deux” or a dance for two, and “de folie a deux” or a form of madness shared by more than one person, or shared psychosis. Here, pas de folie adieu means roughly “no farewell to madness.”
August 5th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
I see the 14th Amendment as existing, but no where does it address itself specifically to an Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born Citizen. I think statutory construction would require it to do so if such was the case.
Since the 14th Amendment does not address itself to an Art. II, §1, cl. 5′s natural born Citizen, a reasonable legal hypothesis would be the authors of the 14th Amendment simply did not see it affecting an Art. II, §1, cl. 5′s natural born Citizen in the first place. Whereas the 14th amendment bestowed US citizen at birth by positive law, an Art. II, §1, cl. 5′s natural born US citizen received US citizenship through the natural transference of the father’s allegiance.
ex animo
davidfarrar
August 5th, 2012 at 4:43 pm
I see the 14th Amendment as existing, but no where does it address itself specifically to an Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born Citizen. I think statutory construction would require it to do so if such was the case.
Since the 14th Amendment does not address itself to an Art. II, §1, cl. 5′s natural born Citizen, a reasonable legal hypothesis would be the authors of the 14th Amendment simply did not see it affecting an Art. II, §1, cl. 5′s natural born Citizen in the first place. Whereas the 14th amendment bestowed US citizen at birth by positive law, an Art. II, §1, cl. 5′s natural born US citizen received US citizenship through the natural transference of allegiance of the father.
ex animo
davidfarrar
August 5th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
BUT, the Wong Kim Ark court said the 14th was just affirming natural born citizenship as a right, in effect placing it into the amendments to protect it from tampering.Just like gun rights, or rights to a jury were put into Amendments for safekeeping.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
August 27th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
[...] http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/kabloony-tunes-or-pas-de-folie-adieu/ Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]