I'm trying to figure out why. It was tossed for failure to state a claim a few days after being filed.

(e)(1) The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.
(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that—
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal—
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

It's another ruling by a federal court that Vattelism is a crock of doo doo. I think that's a milestone.

The eligibility requirements to be President of the United States are such that the individual must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const.art. II, 1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) ("Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.")' Perkis v. Elg, 99 F.2d 408, 409 (1938). Moreover, "those born 'in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' ... have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding...and thus eligible for the presidency." Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H 2008). Thus, Mr. Tisdale's contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is without merit.

I typed this from the Order:

I typed this from the Order:

I typed this from the Order:

Every court and administrative body to consider the issue has held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen who is eligible to service as President. See, e.g., Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”); Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010); Farrar et al v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALIHI (Feb. 3, 2012) (Ga. Office of State Admin. Hearings) (relying on Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels to hold that Obama is natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in the United States); Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama's birth certificate "clearly establishes" his eligibility for office as a "Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Jan. 27, 2012) (hearing officer recommendation) (Obama's birth certificate "clearly establishes" his eligibility for office as a "Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Board of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); see also Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63, 66 (“Those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding and thus eligible for the presidency.”) (internal citations omitted).

Just cuz I hadn't seen where anyone else had done it, now on Scribd

So Addy won't have to type so much

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisd ... bama-et-al

.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties."

I love this string cite. A thing of beauty, - reminds me of Tess' from wayback. Do you think that the Board ruling in New Hampshire should be included? It was on the "merits" (and I use that word loosely), and found Pres O eligible for the ballot, but did not adress the 2-citizen-parent b.s. directly.

A friend of mine, who sweats these things, has prepared a very nice string cite on the cases that have expressly ruled on President Obama's or Senator McCain's eligibility (rather than dismissing for lack of standing or justiciability). Here it is (so far):



It's a work in progress, and will obviously get bigger. The lead case is Tisdale's.

I suspect my friend has read Loh's corrections and has already incorporated them in his/her string cite.

If we were to do a judicial tally on rulings that Obama is NBC, (total number of judges), would all of these count? Are there more?

Marion County IN Superior Court?

Indiana Court of Appeals - 3-judge panel

Indiana Supreme Court - 5 Justices

Fourth Circuit VA - 1 Judge

OSAH GA - 1 ALJ
________________________________

Preliminary sub-total - 10 Judges have ruled or concurred

Apuzzo is a real attorney. He's just a crappy one. So his title should be Crappy Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

OK. Now I haz a confuzzled. Is it Crappy Putative Attorney Mario Apuzzo or Putative Crappy Attorney Mario Apuzzo?

I think Rikker should go back and give Apuzzo the title we now feel best suits him.