MANDAMUS!!!

Most People Think The Issue Is Black And White

Well, tomorrow (August 8, 2012) is the day when Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. has some kind of hearing in Indiana trying to boot Obama from the ballot. Apparently, nothing else has worked and this Mandamus filing is the last daily special item on the menu. When she loses, and she will lose, then she will have to start ordering ala carte, and we will see various appeals and Motions to Reconsider.

A mandamus action is defined as:

mandamus

(man-dame-us) n. Latin for “we order,” a writ (more modernly called a “writ of mandate”) which orders a public agency or governmental body to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do so.

Examples: After petitions were filed with sufficient valid signatures to qualify a proposition for the ballot, the city refuses to call the election, claiming it has a legal opinion that the proposal is unconstitutional. The backers of the proposition file a petition for a writ ordering the city to hold the election. The court will order a hearing on the writ and afterwards either issue the writ or deny the petition.

Here is a pdf copy of Taitz’s Petition For A Writ of Mandamus:

IN-Petition-for-a-Writ-of-Mandamus-7.23.12

Detective Mike Zullo of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse has been subpoenaed, but I am betting he doesn’t show up in Indiana. It is a safe bet that this latest act of Birther Judicial Theatre will not play well beyond the Birther cult fans.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a movie poster from the 1975 film, Mandingo, about which Wiki says:

On Falconhurst, a run-down plantation owned by the widowed Warren Maxwell (James Mason) and his son Hammond (Perry King), a Mandingo slave Ganymede, or Mede (Ken Norton), is trained to fight other slaves. Hammond neglects his wife Blanche (Susan George), whom he rejects on their wedding night after discovering she was not a virgin. Hammond instead ravishes his slave Ellen (Brenda Sykes), while Blanche seduces Mede. These various, conflicting affairs all eventually come together causing the film to end tragically.

Upon its release in 1975, critical response was mixed although box office was strong. Roger Ebert despised the film and gave it a “zero star” rating. Richard Schickel of TIME found the film boring and cliche-ridden. The movie critic Robin Wood was enthusiastic about the film, calling it “the greatest film about race ever made in Hollywood”. Quentin Tarantino has cited Mandingo as one of only two instances “in the last twenty years [that] a major studio made a full-on, gigantic, big-budget exploitation movie”, comparing it to Showgirls. In Leonard Maltin’s annual publication “TV Movies,” the film is ranked as a “BOMB” and dismissed with the word “Stinko!”. Some prominent critics hail the film, including the New York Times columnist Dave Kehr, who called it “a thinly veiled Holocaust film that spares none of its protagonists”, further describing it as “Fleischer’s last great crime film, in which the role of the faceless killer is played by an entire social system.”

Sooo, with comments like, a “zero star” rating, boring and cliche-ridden, “BOMB”, and “Stinko!” that kind of fits the anti-Birther view of the Indiana action.

And for the Birthers, they can rejoice in comments like, greatest film about race ever made, a full-on, gigantic, big-budget exploitation movie, and the last great crime film.

Advertisements

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

13 responses to “MANDAMUS!!!

  • RoadScholar

    Shame you couldn’t work pictures of Orly Taitz, Charles Edward Lincoln III, and a dental chair into the graphic.

  • realist

    Or as Orly spells it… MANDEMUS. 🙂

  • Art Telles

    Hi Squeeky…

    Your ridicule rich anti-birhter articles on your site are definitely entertaining, as are your comments elsewhere, such as Sen. Fred Thompsons article about Sen. Marco Rubio’s possible eligibility to be POTUS.

    The reason I’m referencing your comments on Thompson’s site on your site is because my post on Thompson’s site has not been posted by the moderator, although you posts show up daily.

    I wonder what Sen. Fren Thompson is doing by not posting ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document comments in a timely manner and your ‘anti-birhter’ comments are posted quickly?

    Hmmm…

    Now, the reference to your ‘ridicule rich anti-birther’ perspective is meant in a respectful sense from my perspective as a promoter of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, the ONLY place in the founding documents,

    – Declaration of Independence,
    – Articles of Confideration,
    – U.S. Constitution,

    where ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ are contrasted in the SAME Clause 5, in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ with original intent.

    Next is my sensible ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document post on Fred Thompson’s site.

    ~ ~ ~

    Just 9 easy questions, no tricks (well, except, for the uninformed, maybe #10 and #11, the two questions for extra credit), for BIG Talker… BIG Writer… BIG Blogger… “thought leaders” on radio and tv, print and on the web –

    1-
    Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” refer to a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. “Citizen” parents?

    Yes?
    No?

    2-
    Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. “Citizen” parent and ONE non-U.S. “Citizen” parent?

    Yes?
    No?

    … what if the papa is NOT known as the result of rape?

    … what if the papa is NOT known as the result of rape and the child is adopted?
    … what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are heterosexual male and female?
    … what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual female and female?
    … what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual male and male?

    … what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and unknown donor citizenship documents are not available?
    … what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and the surrogate mother is not a U.S. “Citizen?”

    3-
    Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. “Citizen” parents?

    Yes?
    No?

    2… 1… 0… bingo.

    If the answer is not obvious with the first 3 questions, here’s more.

    4-
    Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “Citizen?”

    Yes?
    No?

    5-
    Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1868 14th Amendment “Citizen?”

    Yes?
    No?

    6-
    Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1868 14th Amendment “Citizen?”

    Yes?
    No?

    7-
    Does a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. “Citizen” parents qualify to be POTUS?

    Yes?
    No?

    8-
    Does a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. “Citizen” parent and ONE non-U.S. “Citizen” parent qualify to be POTUS?

    Yes?
    No?

    9-
    Does a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. “Citizen” parents qualify to be POTUS?

    Yes?
    No?

    2 more questions for extra credit –

    10-
    Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born Citizen?”

    Yes?
    No?

    11-
    Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1795 Naturalization Act “Citizen?”

    Yes?
    No?

    ~ ~ ~

    Squeeky, let your ridicule rich anti-birther words flow. And, if not… well, that’s ok too.

    Ridicule has a way of helping to reveal anti-birther error and the truth about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document, the U.S. Constitution, and the words ‘natural born Citizen’ and the contrast with the word “Citizen’ in the SAME Clause 5, in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ with ORIGINAL intent.

    Art

    • RoadScholar

      The Constitution means at any point in time what the Supreme Court says it means. Not what some guy named Art thinks he sees in comma separations and hallucinated contrasts between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen.

      I can tell you for a fact that rules and habits of punctuation have changed widely over time. In Shakespeare’s day semi-colons and commas had very specific usages, and they were very different from our use of them today. The Constitution pre-dates hard-and-fast rules of punctuation and especially capitalization, and you shouldn’t read more into them than is there. There is no meaningful difference between ‘citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ in the Constitution.

      I can prove the current understanding of NBC quickly: Tom Vilsack. He was a candidate for President, and is currently in the line of succession to become President if everyone above him on the list is killed in an act of war, say. Vilsack’s parents are unknown; he was abandoned as a newborn infant in Philadelphia. So all that is known is where he was born, and when. But he is considered, now, this very day, eligible to be President. QED.

      Additionally, the very first Republican contender for the office, John C. Fremont, was the child of one citizen and one non-citizen. This notion of NBC requiring two citizen parents is nonsense. Swamp gas. Piffle. It was invented solely as a way to claim that Barack Obama is ineligible; it has never before been taken seriously.

      And it will not be now, or ever. Not by the SCOTUS, not by Congress, not by anyone but tin-foil-hat-wearing uber-partisan zealots with internet service.

  • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    Hi Art!!!

    I don’t know why Fred Thompson didn’t print your stuff. I went ahead and made a post out of your comment, sooo you can get some Air Time here. Maybe that will make it up some for you.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • Art Telles

      Well now…

      Hi again Squeeky.

      Of course, Squeeky, I wasn’t looking for ‘Air Time’ by posting here, but, let’s go for it.

      If the first paragraph by RoadScholar and your affirmation of his words is indicative of the caliber of thought about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birhter’ document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, then responding to something as trivial as ‘… hallucinated contrasts …” is like swing at a slow motion lob ball… it’s just too easy… there’s no deep substance there.

      The comma and the word ‘or’ are there for a reason.

      Reason reveals original intent.

      For RoadScholar to deny the original intent of the comma and the word ‘or’ with shallow words of ridicule in the last sentence indicates that the shallow end of the intellecutal pool is a no-go-zone for point-counterpoint dialogue.

      Squeeky, I’ve made my point, and the words will mean the same thing 230 years from now as they mean today,

      See, Squeeky… and RoadScholar… now you know what I mean in the last paragraph of my post above where I wrote “Ridicule has a way of revealing ‘anti-birther’ error and the truth about the ORIGINAL intent of … .”

      So, later.

      There’s no point to continue here, is there Squeeky?

      Art

      • Frank Bolivar

        That’s right, Art, no reason at all if that’s the beat you can come up with.

        The Supreme Court (and many other courts) say you’re full of it. Their opinion on the subject counts. Yours, not so much.

  • Art Telles

    See what I mean Squeeky…

    Squeeky, I returned to see if there were any comments with substance that tried to correct any of the 11 points I made previously.

    Nothing.

    Only 1 comment with 3 sentences of ridicule by Frank Bolivar.

    Oh well.

    When RoadScholar writes that “… rules and habits of punctuation have changed widely over time” as the reason that the 1787 ORIGINAL intent of the comma and the word ‘or’ in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is not relevant in 2012, well, that does not respond to the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document, does it?

    See Squeeky, ridicule is ridiculous, isn’t it?

    You are a very good writer Squeeky… stay away from the shallow ridicule in your future articles and ride the wave of recognition into the future.

    Just sayin’… ’cause I like the way you write.

    Art

    • Slartibartfast

      Jeebus Art, Squeeky wrote a whole article based on your little test and you say she’s ignoring it—I guess lying is just second nature to you guys…

      First, the clause in question is:

      No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

      So, breaking this down, we have two groups:

      natural born Citizens

      and

      Citizens of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

      who are eligible to the presidency. You seem to make the absurd logical leap that these two classes were mutually exclusive—in other words, you are trying to tell us that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington didn’t consider themselves natural born citizens. Sorry, but you will never find any evidence of this because it’s just not true. The first draft didn’t have the grandfather clause in it—do you think the founders nearly accidentally ensured that no one would be eligible for the presidency until someone born after July 4, 1776 turned 35? No, the founders added the clause to include people like Alexander Hamilton, not people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The grandfather clause is nothing but a historical oddity—never used and now expired.

      Hi Squeeky…
      Your ridicule rich anti-birhter articles on your site are definitely entertaining, as are your comments elsewhere, such as Sen. Fred Thompsons article about Sen. Marco Rubio’s possible eligibility to be POTUS.
      The reason I’m referencing your comments on Thompson’s site on your site is because my post on Thompson’s site has not been posted by the moderator, although you posts show up daily.

      You’re jealous of Squeeky—how cute. It also sounds like Mr. Thompson doesn’t let birthers spew their filth on his website–good for him.

      I wonder what Sen. Fren Thompson is doing by not posting ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document comments in a timely manner and your ‘anti-birhter’ comments are posted quickly?
      Hmmm…

      I’d say he’s exercising his right to determine the allowable content on his site—birthers don’t seem to mind censorship when it is birther sites censoring all dissent. Yet they complain when the same tactic is used against them.

      Hmmm… isn’t there a word for that…

      Oh yeah, “hypocrite”.

      Now, the reference to your ‘ridicule rich anti-birther’ perspective is meant in a respectful sense from my perspective as a promoter of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, the ONLY place in the founding documents,
      – Declaration of Independence,
      – Articles of Confideration,
      – U.S. Constitution,
      where ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ are contrasted in the SAME Clause 5, in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ with original intent.
      Next is my sensible ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document post on Fred Thompson’s site.

      I already addressed this above, but I thought that I would just note how erudite this little screed fails to make you look.

      ~ ~ ~
      Just 9 easy questions, no tricks (well, except, for the uninformed, maybe #10 and #11, the two questions for extra credit), for BIG Talker… BIG Writer… BIG Blogger… “thought leaders” on radio and tv, print and on the web –

      You seem to think this test makes you look clever—it doesn’t. All it does is make you look sophomoric and juvenile.

      1-
      Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” refer to a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. “Citizen” parents?
      Yes?
      No?

      NBC includes this entire class

      2-
      Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. “Citizen” parent and ONE non-U.S. “Citizen” parent?
      Yes?
      No?

      NBC includes this entire class—none of the answers to the subquestions effect this.

      … what if the papa is NOT known as the result of rape?
      … what if the papa is NOT known as the result of rape and the child is adopted?
      … what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are heterosexual male and female?
      … what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual female and female?
      … what if the papa is NOT known and the adoptive parents are homosexual male and male?
      … what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and unknown donor citizenship documents are not available?
      … what if… in vitro fertilization is successful and the surrogate mother is not a U.S. “Citizen?”
      3-
      Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” refer to a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. “Citizen” parents?
      Yes?
      No?

      NBC includes this class with the exception of the children (by non-US citizens) of anyone with diplomatic immunity or anyone who is part of an invading army.

      2… 1… 0… bingo.
      If the answer is not obvious with the first 3 questions, here’s more.

      Yes, it’s obvious—you’re going to be spouting a bunch of bovine fecal matter any second now…

      4-
      Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “Citizen?”
      Yes?
      No?

      The latter includes, but is not equal to, the former.

      5-
      Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1868 14th Amendment “Citizen?”
      Yes?
      No?

      The 14th Amendment references two types of citizens—born citizens, which are the same as A2S1 NBCs, and naturalized citizens (which is the type of citizenship that the Constitution empowered Congress to define)

      6-
      Does an 1787 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1868 14th Amendment “Citizen?”
      Yes?
      No?

      Yes.

      7-
      Does a child born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. “Citizen” parents qualify to be POTUS?
      Yes?
      No?

      After he’s 35 so long as he’s lived in the US for 14 years.

      8-
      Does a child born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. “Citizen” parent and ONE non-U.S. “Citizen” parent qualify to be POTUS?
      Yes?
      No?

      After he’s 35 so long as he’s lived in the US for 14 years.

      9-
      Does a child born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. “Citizen” parents qualify to be POTUS?
      Yes?
      No?

      After he’s 35 so long as he’s lived in the US for 14 years so long as he doesn’t fall into the non-citizen classes described above.

      2 more questions for extra credit –
      10-
      Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born Citizen?”
      Yes?
      No?

      Personally, I don’t believe that the Constitution gives Congress the power to bestow natural born citizenship on anyone, but in 1790 Congress seemed to feel that they could add to the class of natural born citizenry and since it was never overturned by the courts, I would have to say they did.

      11-
      Does an Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” mean the same thing as an 1795 Naturalization Act “Citizen?”
      Yes?
      No?

      No—the two classes of citizenship, natural born and naturalized are mutually exclusive.

      ~ ~ ~
      Squeeky, let your ridicule rich anti-birther words flow.

      She has already made a whole other thread to ridicule you in…

      And, if not… well, that’s ok too.
      Ridicule has a way of helping to reveal anti-birther error and the truth about the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL ‘Birther’ document, the U.S. Constitution, and the words ‘natural born Citizen’ and the contrast with the word “Citizen’ in the SAME Clause 5, in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ with ORIGINAL intent.
      Art

      You keep using words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. Just sayin’.

      One question: if birthers are right and anti-birthers are wrong, why do all of the anti-birther predictions come true and while none of the birther predictions do? Can you explain that Art?

    • Frank Bolivar

      Not ridicule, Art.. fact.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: