Tag Archives: Legal

Time Enough At Last??? (Or, Prof. Jacobson Enters The Birther Zone!!!)

jacobson 2

Prof. Jacobson Wins His Place In The Guinness Book Of World Records After Successfully Dodging 1,749 Copies Of  Vattel’s The Law Of Nations!

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Birther Zone.

Professor William Jacobson, a Cornell law professor, is finally ready to take on the question of whether Mark Rubio and Ted Cruz are eligible for the Presidency. Here are a few excerpts from an August 13, 2013 article:

Ted and Marco Eligibility – I Can’t Put It Off Any Longer

The analysis of the Natural Born Citizen clause in the Constitution as it applies to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

I promised to do this long ago, and did the research with the assistance of a former student, but couldn’t bring myself to actually write it up for multiple reasons:

(1) it’s a subject which brings out the most vitriolic commenters and e-mailers (hey, why don’t we talk about a non-controversial subject instead, like Islam or Gay Marriage?) and I haven’t been in the mood;
(2) views on the subject have become like religion, incapable of disproving;
(3) I’ve generally been distracted, with each week bringing some new “crisis” to write about;
(4) I’m lazy by nature;
(5) the process of relocating from RI to NY started in March and continued through July, and sapped what little free time I had;
(6) this isn’t actually my job,
(7) I’m lazy by nature (but I repeat myself); and
(8) bullet-proofing the analysis against the inevitable criticisms requires more painstaking drafting than normally takes place on the internet.

But it can’t be ignored anymore.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/08/ted-and-marco-eligibility-i-cant-put-this-off-any-longer/#comments

The links there to a previous article in, February 2013,  reveal some of what he has been going through:

The nature of the hostility directed at me has changed over the years.

In 2008-2010, it was mostly Obama supporters upset that someone who taught at an Ivy League law school would dissent.  I guess they figured their love letters weren’t working, so that has mostly (but not completely) stopped.

The most unhinged of late are Elizabeth Warren supporters.  (More on that, perhaps, in a later post.)

But along that road, there has been a consistent allegation that I was part of some vast conspiracy to conceal Obama’s alleged lack of constitutional qualification, first on birth place grounds and then on “natural born citizen” grounds.

That, even though I was one of the few people to defend the right of anyone to question the constitutional qualifications of any presidential candidate, so long as the challenge was not based on conspiracy theories and making stuff up.  I never accepted the Barack Obama birthplace conspiracy theories any more than I accepted the Trig Palin birth mother conspiracy theories.

I, almost alone, delved into the history of constitutional challenges, dating back to Chester Arthur on through George Romney and John McCain, with others along the way, to show that challenging constitutional qualification was not inherently racist and did not begin with Barack Obama.  No one pushed back against the abuse of the “Birther Card” more than I did.  (On the flip side of the coin, some left-wingers accused me of being a “Birther” because I refused to buy into the race card use.)

He then goes on to discuss the hostility in more detail. There are a lot of good comments at both stories. I read his blog regularly, although I usually don’t comment very much. Two of his excuses for putting this off will strike a chord with both Obots and Anti-Birthers, to wit:

(2) views on the subject have become like religion, incapable of disproving;

(8) bullet-proofing the analysis against the inevitable criticisms requires more painstaking drafting than normally takes place on the internet.

Those two items lead me to suspect that he has had a whole lot more run-ins with the Birthers than I ever expected. Personally, I am curious what verbal canards the Birthers will lob at him and whether they will also chunk physical copies of The Law of Nations at him, in the manner of Arabs throwing shoes. I can hardly wait to read his analysis, which I suspect is not going to make Birthers very happy.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from the TV series, The Twilight Zone. This episode is called “Time Enough At Last.” About which Wiki Says:

It was adapted from a short story by Lyn Venable (Marilyn Venable), which had been published in the January 1953 edition of the science fiction magazine If: Worlds of Science Fiction. “Time Enough at Last” became one of the most famous episodes of the original Twilight Zone, and has been frequently parodied since. It is “the story of a man who seeks salvation in the rubble of a ruined world” and tells of Henry Bemis /ˈbiːmɪs/, played by Burgess Meredith, who loves books, yet is surrounded by those who would prevent him from reading them. The episode follows Bemis through the post apocalyptic world, touching on such social issues as anti-intellectualism, the dangers of reliance upon technology, and the difference between aloneness (solitude) and loneliness.

There is more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_at_Last

Advertisements

The “Two Citizen Parents” Requirement??? Oh Yeah, The Birthers Built That!!!

Aha! The Birthers Were Privy To Secret Information After All!

Well, I am not above ripping off the “You Didn’t Build That-Yes I Did Too Build That” partisan squabble theme.  Sooo, lets look at the Imaginary Law that the Birthers built, all by themselves.  Now we could do this by reading Wong Kim Ark (1998) and then Ankeny (2009) and so forth and so on, and prove the Birthers entire theory is not based in REAL law, and thus by that process infer that their theory is totally manufactured.

But it would be far more fun to take the Birthers’ own thought processes and examine how they go astray from their end. Thankfully, Mario “The Mangler” Apuzzo, Esq.  is on retainer with the Birther Dreamwerks, so we won’t have to look far. Plus,  he is an Article II Constitutional specialist on this stuff, in much the same way as Lem Putt is a specialist in his chosen field. (see Note 2, below).

Here is what I found at Apuzzo’s blog, and with this one six-sentence  paragraph we can see where the Birthers derive their weird beliefs and why judges equip their bailiffs with butterfly nets whenever the Birthers come to visit:

The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.” When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, they surely did not write the clause into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

Here is a link, in case you want to read the whole thing:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/08/barack-obama-ballot-challenge.html

Now, let’s examine this sentence by sentence to see how Apuzzo ending up constructing the ramshackle hovel of his theory.

Sentence 1: The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Well, this is true. No problem so far.

Sentence 2: It [14th Amendment] does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.”

Whoops! @#%!!&**#. Mario just whacked the crap out  his thumb with the hammer. Apuzzo is making a conclusion here. This was a FALSE assumption on his part. Because when you refer to the SCOTUS case, Wong Kim Ark (1898), section V., you find this:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

From sections II and III of the Wong Kim Ark decision, we know that “fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion” was also known as NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

Further down in section III, we find this put even more succinctly:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

So Mario Apuzzo Esq. is simply, and badly, wrong. By the clear holding of the Wong Kim Ark Court, the 14th Amendment DID INDEED give those born within the country, and not subject to the two exceptions, “the status of a “natural born Citizen.” This fundamental mistake is where the Birthers first start to go off course.

Sentence 3: When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment.

This is true. The 14th Amendment was not passed until 1868.

Sentence 4: Hence, they surely did not write the clause [natural born citizen] into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Also true, because the Constitution came first by about 80 years.  But, that does not mean that the opposite is also true.  In fact, it is very possible for the 14th Amendment coming 80 years later to  “have in mind a citizenship standard that is contained in the Constitution.”  Repeating again the introduction to section V:

V. In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

Did you get that Mario??? Both the 14th Amendment, and the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866, affirmed the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion. This was the common law on natural born citizenship. For, as is stated further down in Section V, and cited with approval:

In 1871, Mr. Fish, writing to Mr. Marsh, the American Minister to Italy, said:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This is simply an affirmance [p690] of the common law of England and of this country so far as it asserts the status of citizenship to be fixed by the place of nativity, irrespective of parentage. The qualification, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was probably intended to exclude the children of foreign ministers, and of other persons who may be within our territory with rights of extraterritoriality.

2 Whart.Int.Dig. p. 394.

and here is more from section V, which proves the 14th Amendment was declaratory of pre-existing law, that is – the common law relating to natural born citizenship, [cites omitted]:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

And what was that common law they were referring to? One more time for the slow:

[E]very child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

So no, Article II of the Constitution did not contemplate the 14th Amendment, but the 14th Amendment sure contemplated the Article II common law on natural born citizenship.

Sentence 5: And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Very true. The 14th Amendment did NOT repeal or amend the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause. That is because the 14th Amendment actually AFFIRMED the Article II natural born Citizen. From the bottom of section V of Wong Kim Ark:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory. . .

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject. . .

Sentence 6: Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

No they don’t. For persons born within the United States, they are the same thing. Which is what court after court keeps telling the Birthers. Those courts either cite the same things from Wong Kim Ark, that I have, or they simply cite the reasoning in the Ankeny decision, which in turn is based on WKA, as persuasive.

You see, the courts aren’t looking to play devious little word games which back up their personal desires. They are just courts, and judges, who read the law and try in an honest fashion to figure out what it means. In their simple and naive fashion,  the judges and courts think that:

1. The common law concept that persons born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, makes one a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

and:

2. The 14th Amendment provision bestowing citizenship on persons born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers, makes one a citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

are:

3. Talking about the same group of people – native born citizens, or citizens at birth, or natural born citizens.

They think this because the same requirements are met by both groups, to wit:. . . born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers. In fact, for this NOT to be true, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. would have to amend his 5th sentence above to read the reverse of what it does:

The Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Because if 14th Amendment didn’t repeal or amend the previous common law, then those  born in the country to parents who are neither foreign diplomats or invading soldiers are the same people, no matter which law you use. In effect, Apuzzo’s own assumptions and reasoning destroys his own argument.

This has been a step by step analysis of how Mario Apuzzo, Esq. ended up in legal La La Land.  This is how he ends up believing Emerich de Vattel sets the standard for natural born citizenship. This is how Apuzzo latches on the the two citizen parents stuff, because that notion is nowhere to be found in the 14th Amendment. It isn’t found in the Constitution either, but since the term isn’t defined there, it is easier to play games with. But first, Apuzzo has to get rid of the pesky 14th Amendment or his other tenets  can go nowhere.

But, as you can see above,  Apuzzo went astray in his reasoning early on. And it is obvious to the non-Birther community. This is why the Birther mantra, “there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen” keeps getting bounced out of courtrooms across the nation.  This is why the Apuzzites are getting assessed court costs, and  having their arguments called frivolous, and without merit.

Apuzzo can not even maintain internal consistency in his own argument. Sooo, with the image above in mind, people should be careful about entering his sanctuary. You might fall in.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. I found this image (An outhouse at Goat Peak, 6,305 ft (1,922 m) above sea level) at Wiki, which has many interesting things to say about Outhouses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outhouse

Note 2. Lem Putt, The Specialist.  My father had a copy of this book.  Here is a online link to the short 1929 book:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/specialist.html

Note 3.  Privy. For ESL’s, this word has two meanings:

1. outhouse: a small outbuilding with a bench having holes through which a user can defecate

2. privy(p): (followed by `to’) informed about something secret or not generally known; “privy to the details of the conspiracy”

Reader hklrnaa47 has provided this additional information about the etymology of these two definitions in the comments below. I am updating this note to add this. Thank You hklrnaa47!!!

Hi Squeeks. Your 2 part definition of the word ‘privy’ doesn’t actually explain how the same word gained those 2 definitions.

In fact ‘privy’ is a very old word having to do with toilet and the location of emptying ones bowels. Once upon a time, Kings, being special people and all, were provided with special servants, called ‘Privy Counselors’ whose job it was, quite literally, to wipe the Kings ass.

As you can imagine, someone entrusted with this rather intimate access to the Kings person had to be completely trustworthy and dependable. They would grow, over time, to do more than just help with the Kings movements, they would be entrusted with secrets of all kinds.

Thus definition number two.

For the Image Easter Egg. Another word play. Going over the edge is an idiom which means to go crazy. However, the word “going” or “go” (which also means to use the restroom) combined with a privy perched on the edge of a cliff,  and presumably emptying  out over said edge, means something else entirely.


Trouble In Birther Paradise, 0r, A Diet of Worms (Part 1 of the Birther Feud Trilogy)

Whichever Way It Turned Out, The Looney Tunes Were Guaranteed A Win

Dean Haskins, organizer of The Birther Summit, must have watched the movie, Patton, and was stirred by George C. Scott’s rendition of General Patton’s motivational speech. Particularly this part:

Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.”

I guess he got to thinking about it, and realized that Birthers have pretty much lost every court battle they have fought, and Haskins thinks he has discovered the reason. . . Orly Taitz.  The first shots in the feud were fired on January 19, 2012. In Haskins‘ own words, from some choice excerpts in his OF SUBPOENAS, TRIALS, AND A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT:

At issue are two dynamics concerning Orly Taitz I believe need to be addressed—namely, a lack of understanding of the law, and a megalomaniacal persona.

I think we have all been very forgiving of Orly’s numerous legal “missteps” in the past, because we have all believed that she would eventually do something right, and our case would finally be “heard.” I am now convinced that will never happen—at least not at the hand of Orly Taitz

Repeatedly filing  motions and “subpoenas” to obtain something to which she has no legal right is what will eventually win her “vexatious litigant” status.

Believe me, I understand the principle of flinging enough poo against the wall in the belief that, eventually, something will stick; and generally, I know that, in the right situation, that can be an effective approach. Unfortunately, in this instance, it has not been; and my gut feeling is that both the Hawaii and Georgia courts have intercepted the proverbial poo before it has hit the wall, and very soon, will be tossing it at a fan.

http://www.birthersummit.org/news/74-of-subpoenas-trials-and-a-vexatious-litigant.html

This was followed on January 20, 2012 by the analytical thesis,  HAS ORLY ACTUALLY WON!!! WON!!! WON???

This is a follow-up to something I posted yesterday. Before making my observations, I want to make a guarantee. If it turns out that I was wrong in my previous statement, I will gladly state that I was wrong, and issue a full apology to Orly about my legal assessment (which is something I already know would never be a reciprocal agreement). However, I am certainly not prepared to do that today, regardless of Orly’s “I won!!! I won!!! I won!!!” foolishness. You see, unlike Orly, I am not going to look at a cow patty, and assume that because there is evidence of a cow somewhere, I get to serve ice cream to everybody right now. Let me rephrase that . . . SELL ice cream to everybody right now.

This is one of the issues I have already discussed—that everything from Orly seems to come with her own flavor of spin. And then, once the spin has been made, it is blindly believed by people (who just want so badly for it to be true), and it starts getting posted around the internet. Problem is, when it turns out that it wasn’t entirely true, the only recourse Orly has is to scream “corruption!”

I’m not trying to be a downer, or burst anybody’s bubble—but, honestly folks—we need to stop spreading the spin all over the internet, just to be made fools of when what was posted never happens. I’m amazed at the number of people who haven’t figured that one out with Orly yet. It’s just not going to happen like we want it to.

http://www.birthersummit.org/news/75-has-orly-actually-won-won-won.html

Haskins,  a musician by trade,  must have remembered those well-known lyrics, “Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, Guess I’ll go eat worms.”   Either that, or some massive missles of Flying Monkey poo got flung at Haskins, because the very next day we find this . . . HAS DEAN HASKINS LOST HIS MIND?:

Of course, over the past few days, I’ve received some hate mail, but, not as much as one might think. I have received far more messages from those who have basically said, “It’s about time.” So, the Obots hate me because I’m a birther, the Orlybots hate me because I’ve told the truth, and then there is a publicly silent group who chooses to remain Swiss in this matter (now, isn’t that an amazing coincidence?). It appears I may be making myself a man with no country. I’ve heard that island living isn’t all that bad.

There are even those who suggest that what I have said could injure our cause. Well, if you believe that the truth will hurt your cause, then either you are corrupt, or your cause is; and, I’m not willing to concede that our cause is. Nothing I have said can harm our cause, because nothing I have said is untrue. Again, not liking the law, or proper legal procedure, is not a reason to ignore them. And, working outside of them is a formula for certain defeat. It is also worth mentioning the intellectual dishonesty involved in chiding me for telling a blunt truth, but giving incessant passes to the hateful attacks from the she-god.

http://www.birthersummit.org/news/76-has-dean-haskins-lost-his-mind.html

Lest there be any doubt that Haskins’ ex-communication is in process, here is a communication from an ex-supporter, Sharon Rondeau, Editor of The Post and Email:

Sharon:

On January 20, 2012, I received the following email from you:

I am personally appalled at the defamation of character you have displayed against Orly Taitz. As editor of The Post & Email, I normally keep opinions to myself; however, your egregious attack on her character and efforts is very revealing about your motivation. I am truly shocked at what you have written, for which Dr. Taitz could hold you legally liable.

I will not be publishing anything from The Birther Summit in the future.

Haskins pubished that on February 4, 2012 in AN OPEN LETTER TO THE POST & EMAIL’S SHARON RONDEAU:

http://www.birthersummit.org/news/84-an-open-letter-to-the-post-a-emails-sharon-rondeau.html

The Schism widens. A few days later, on February 8, 2012, Haskins accused Taitz of Gross Diva-ism and impeding Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, in his HAS THE COLD CASE POSSE’S INVESTIGATION BEEN DELAYED?:

Before proceeding, I want to explain something important, as this is crucial to understanding what is repeatedly happening to our initiatives. Orly Taitz seems to display a need to attach herself to every possible aspect of our movement in a tireless effort to remain the self-exalted face of it. When she is hampered in her quests to hijack what others are trying to accomplish (to try to claim their efforts as her own), she will inevitably do all she can to sabotage them.

As most people are likely aware, during a law enforcement investigation, those who are conducting it cannot reveal any of the evidence they are examining, as doing so can often hamper the investigation itself. However, there has been a concerted effort by someone playing the role of an attorney (very poorly, I might add) to either hijack or sabotage this investigation, as was evidenced by her mailing an unenforceable, downloaded “subpoena” form from Georgia’s OSAH website. This was an attempt to “force” Sheriff Joe into prematurely revealing the products of his investigation, which, thankfully, was seen as the ignoble and ignorable act that it was. It was an attempted hijacking.

Being unsuccessful in hijacking the investigation, the next step was, predictably, sabotage. Very recently, she posted this statement on her website: I HOPE ARPAIO IS NOT USING HIS INVESTIGATION OF OBAMA AS A BARGAINING CHIP WITH THE FEDS. THIS WOULD EXPLAIN THE DELAYS.

While there may still be some who believe that Orly Taitz advanced our cause in the past, many now question her motives, and understand the damage she continues to inflict on our efforts. Whatever her motives may be, it is time for her to stand down and let professional law enforcement proceed in its investigation without any further hampering or interference.

http://www.birthersummit.org/news/85-has-the-cold-case-posses-investigation-been-delayed.html

Then, on February 14, 2012, Haskins penned the Allegorical,  BREAKING! SURGEON KILLS MULTIPLE PATIENTS. BLAMES HOSPITAL.  It is a quite creative and witty piece, and includes:

What if you read this chilling headline, and further discovered that it was even worse than initially thought . . . that every patient upon whom this surgeon operated died as a result of the surgeon’s incompetence? But, imagine even further that this surgeon had a blog, and on that blog were statements like, “I am, surgeon who does 99%, of work advancing medical, science,” and the posts were full of scientific falsehoods and medical impossibilities, and usually included pleas for donations so that the surgeon could “operate” on more unsuspecting patients?

No rational adult would ever state that this was a surgeon who deserved support and gratitude. No, we would be wondering why the surgeon even had a medical license, and why malpractice complaints and fines hadn’t shut down the horrendous enterprise.

It gets even better. Go here to read the whole thing:

http://www.birthersummit.org/news/86-breaking-surgeon-kills-multiple-patients-blames-hospital.html

Taitz has responded thusly:

Cannon of Legal Ethics??? I'll Show You Cannons!!!

OK, so I jest a little. Actually, there are two more Internet Articles I have planned to discuss other aspects of this issue. The next one will deal more with Orly Taitz, and her perceived incompetence.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: The Images. The Images are from the 1935 film, The Hillbilly, Directed by Walter Lantz, starring Oswald “The Lucky” Rabbit, and Poodles Hound. More may be found here:

http://cartoonsof1935.blogspot.com/2012/02/016-hill-billy.html

Note 2: A Diet of Worms. This is a wordplay on The Diet of Wurms, about which Wiki says:

The Diet of Worms 1521 (German: Reichstag zu Worms, [ˈʁaɪçstaːk tsuː ˈvɔɐms]) was a diet (a formal deliberative assembly, specifically an Imperial Diet) that took place in Worms, Germany, and is most memorable for the Edict of Worms (Wormser Edikt), which addressed Martin Luther and the effects of the Protestant Reformation. It was conducted from 28 January to 25 May 1521, with Emperor Charles V presiding.

In June of the previous year, 1520, Pope Leo X issued the Papal bull Exsurge Domine (“Arise, O Lord”), outlining 41 purported errors found in Martin Luther’s 95 theses and other writings related to or written by him. Luther was summoned by the emperor. Prince Frederick III, Elector of Saxony obtained an agreement that if Luther appeared he would be promised safe passage to and from the meeting. This guarantee was essential after the treatment of Jan Hus, who was tried and executed at the Council of Constance in 1415 despite a promise of safe conduct.

Emperor Charles V commenced the Imperial Diet of Worms on 28 January 1521. Luther was summoned to renounce or reaffirm his views. When he appeared before the assembly on 16 April, Johann Eck, an assistant of the Archbishop of Trier (Richard Greiffenklau zu Vollraths at that time), acted as spokesman for the emperor.

Note 3: Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, Guess I’ll go eat worms. . . This is a reference to the The Worm Song, of which several versions can be found here. The melody is the same as Polly Wolly Doodle:

http://bussongs.com/songs/nobody_likes_me_worms.php

Thanks to “G” who suggested this note be added!!!


Precedent Evil – The MHV Virus Spreads Beyond Squirrel City!!!

The Girl Reporter Runs To Warn The World That The Minor Happersett Virus (MHV) Has Broken Out Of Squirrel City

Well, I have been writing a lot of Internet Articles lately about the Minor v. Happersett voting rights case from 1875. The two citizen parent Birthers (who I also teasingly call the Vattle Birthers, because of their reliance on Emerich de Vattel) have worked themselves into an illogical frenzy trying to make the case say things it doesn’t. Here is the language which drives the Vattle Birthers into mindless babbling insanity:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Clearly, the judges in that case are NOT tackling the issue of whether children born here of foreigners are natural born citizens. The Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS case did that 23 years later in 1898. In addition to being a matter of common sense and basic reading skills, the fact that Minor v. Happersett did NOT resolve the issue is also a matter of law. The Indiana Court of Appeals stated in 2009, in a Vattle Birther suit:

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the [Minor] Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

While this should be enough for people with common sense, no one can accuse the Vattle Birthers of suffering from that particular affliction. An outfit called the Liberty Legal Foundation filed suit in federal court and state court against the National Democratic  Party, and asking the Court to affirm the definition of natural born citizenship in Minor v. Happersett. Here is the link to the lawsuit, and the idiotic language is in the second paragraph:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/70525434/LIBERTY-LEGAL-FOUNDATION-et-al-v-NDP-of-USA-INC-et-al-USDC-AZ-1-COMPLAINT-Gov-uscourts-azd-651381-1-0

Here is the paragraph:

2. This Complaint does not request or require this Court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of President of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term “natural born citizen” under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentionalmisrepresentations of the Democratic Party. This Complaint requests this Court to affirm the Supreme Court’s definition of “natural born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.162 (1875)

This so-called precedent is not a precedent and can’t be since it did not resolve the issue. To try to use it as such is both evil and stupid. It should not take the court long to drive a stake through the heart of this Precedent Evil.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note:  The title of this Internet Article is  a pun based on the Resident Evil series of movies and video games.  Squirrel City is a play on Raccoon City, which (as wiki says) is a fictional metropolis located in the Arklay Mountains of North America that succumbed to the deadly T-Virus outbreak and was consequently destroyed via a nuclear missile attack issued by the United States government. The town served a critical junction for the series’ progression as one of the main catalysts to Umbrella’s downfall as well as the entry point for some of the series’ most notable characters. Of course Squirrel also implies the Vattle Birthers are nutz. The MHV Virus is a spoof on the T-Virus.

The heroine is Alice Abernathy.  Here is a great drawing of her by GorillazFiggo and can be found at:

http://gorillazfiggo.deviantart.com/art/Alice-Resident-Evil-187613566

Alice, Resident Evil by GorillazFiggo