Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41896
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#101

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:20 am

Case is dead.Sekrit Stuffs!
Today was the 90th day after the Indiana Supremes denied transfer.
Damn. No SCOTUS ruling is going to happen before 2012 now.



User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 3074
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: About 40,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Occupation: Senior Scheduling Manager
Chemtrails Program
Human Factors and Behavioral Sciences Division

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#102

Post by Dallasite » Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:29 pm

I use this case quite often to smack birthers when they start throwing de Vattel around. I quote the NBC part on page 17 and haven't really read much else of the decision. This morning I read further into it and noticed this:





[link]Ankeny v Gov of IN,http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pd ... 03.ebb.pdf[/link]


see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”)I don't know if anyone has looked at Diaz-Salazar v INS to find that quote but I decided to check it out this morning. Diaz-Salazar entered the US illegally in 1974 and INS wanted to deport him. Further into the decision I found this:





[link]Diaz-Salazar v INS,http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/doclink. ... +F.2d+1156[/link]


[10] The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.I now have another court decision saying children of an alien parent are natural born US citizens! \ :D /


"I drank what?!?!" - Soctates, 399 BC

User avatar
Tesibria
Posts: 4380
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:02 am
Location: depends on the day.
Contact:

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#103

Post by Tesibria » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:39 pm

I now have another court decision saying children of an alien parent are natural born US citizens! \ :D /There's a few more cases for you, some listed [link]here,http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.p ... 150#p99006[/link]; and see [link]here,http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.p ... &start=175[/link] re: the appellate decision in Perkins v. Elg. There are a few other compilations around here, IIRC, but I can't seem to find them at the moment.


“Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones, in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”― Tom Stoppard
WYE: Arpaio-Melendres-Seattle Operation Timeline | Sectec Astronomy: Dennis Montgomery Timeline

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34173
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#104

Post by realist » Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:43 pm

I am not at my computer, so don't have a link, but nolu chan published all the documents in the Diaz case today. :D


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31118
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#105

Post by mimi » Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:34 pm

I am not at my computer, so don't have a link, but nolu chan published all the documents in the Diaz case today. :D Nolu's scribd account:[/break1]scribd.com/nolu%20chan]http://www.scribd.com/nolu%20chan



User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 3074
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: About 40,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Occupation: Senior Scheduling Manager
Chemtrails Program
Human Factors and Behavioral Sciences Division

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#106

Post by Dallasite » Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:35 pm

Thanks Tes! Now I'm gonna have to read through them to see which ones specifically state one or both parents are not US citizens. I want to be able to use Pres. Obama's exact parental situation against birfers.
Edit: Thanks to Realist and Mimi too, also


"I drank what?!?!" - Soctates, 399 BC

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 23088
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#107

Post by Addie » Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:43 am

So how come no birfer lawyers ever bring Ankeny to SCOTUS? Just curious. If anyone has time to indulge me with a summary ;;)


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41896
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#108

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:04 am

So how come no birfer lawyers ever bring Ankeny to SCOTUS? Just curious. If anyone has time to indulge me with a summary ;;)Do you mean why wasn't this case "appealed" to SCOTUS? (The proper procedure is a petition for certiorari.)





The plaintiffs in Ankeny were not represented by lawyers. It was the only case in recent memory in which there were no "standing" issues and which SCOTUS could have heard because of the Federal question. But for some reason, none of the brilliant attorneys litigating birther cases volunteered. One may speculate that the failure of these lawyers to ask to take the case to SCOTUS demonstrates more that they seek to scintillate their PayPal buttons and create chaos than is their interest in obtaining a definitive ruling. Unlike the clueless (jy and Kerchner for example), the birther lawyers can read the handwriting on the wall. They know the cases are all losers. As they continue to lose on standing grounds they can whine the issue remains undecided.



MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#109

Post by MaineSkeptic » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:14 am

So how come no birfer lawyers ever bring Ankeny to SCOTUS? Just curious. If anyone has time to indulge me with a summary ;;)Do you mean why wasn't this case "appealed" to SCOTUS? (The proper procedure is a petition for certiorari.)Another dumb IANAL question:I recall that the Indiana Supreme Court, rather than hearing the appeal and denying it, actually denied the transfer of the case.Does that have any effect on the ability to petition SCOTUS for cert?



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 23088
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#110

Post by Addie » Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:21 am

Thanks, Sterny.


¡Qué vergüenza!

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41896
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#111

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:03 pm

So how come no birfer lawyers ever bring Ankeny to SCOTUS? Just curious. If anyone has time to indulge me with a summary ;;)Do you mean why wasn't this case "appealed" to SCOTUS? (The proper procedure is a petition for certiorari.)


Another dumb IANAL question:





I recall that the Indiana Supreme Court, rather than hearing the appeal and denying it, actually denied the transfer of the case.





Does that have any effect on the ability to petition SCOTUS for cert?No. SCOTUS often takes cases from an intermediate appellate court where the state's supreme court has denied discretionary review. It is slightly more likely that SCOTUS will grant review from a state's highest court's decision than from an intermediate decision, but your question asked about "effect on ability" not "likelihood."





In my opinion, while Ankeny was clearly correctly decided, SCOTUS might have granted cert. and affirmed summarily just to put an end to all the bullshit. Even though each case is to be considered on its merits, SCOTUS justices and clerks do live in the real world. They all now know who the Chaleria is and what a blight she has inflicted on the legal system (If only the California State Bar knew that, too.)





Having said all of that, I would like to hear bob's opinion. bob knows these things very very well.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22733
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#112

Post by bob » Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:30 pm

Noteworthy cases (and "interesting" arguments) do get noticed, but there's lots of paper flowing through courthouses, and lots of nuts out there besides birthers.





Yes, a SCOTUS cert. petition could have been filed in Ankeny (time to do so has passed), and here's my question: Why wasn't one filed? Or, more specifically, why didn't Taitz, Apuzzo, Berg, etc. offer to file one for those pro se petitioners? (I suspect the answer is "ego.")





Birthers love to say, "No case has been decided on the merits; we still don't know." And then Ankeny comes out, and it is on the merits.* In his case, Apuzzo writes a craptastic petition that is 95% Vattel and 5% standing (the only issue before the court), yet Ankeny presented the perfect vehicle for him to present his "argument."








* And thus the goalposts were moved: "No federal court has been decided on the merits."


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 23088
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#113

Post by Addie » Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:36 pm

Yep, exactly why I asked. I thought I must have been missing something, but I wasn't. This free legal education offered by PJ/FB sure is worth a lot.








Yes, a SCOTUS cert. petition could have been filed in Ankeny (time to do so has passed), and here's my question: Why wasn't one filed? Or, more specifically, why didn't Taitz, Apuzzo, Berg, etc. offer to file one for those pro se petitioners? (I suspect the answer is "ego.")





Birthers love to say, "No case has been decided on the merits; we still don't know." And then Ankeny comes out, and it is on the merits.* In his case, Apuzzo writes a craptastic petition that is 95% Vattel and 5% standing (the only issue before the court), yet Ankeny presented the perfect vehicle for him to present his "argument."




¡Qué vergüenza!

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#114

Post by MichaelN » Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:28 am

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. :hug: \ :D /The dicta of the Wong court was erroneous to suggest that if a child of an alien, born in England, is an English 'natural born subject', then the a child of an alien, born in USA, is a 'natural born citizen'.





The Horace Grey court got it all wrong in Wong with this notion, the 'guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark' is faulty.





English Common Law (See The English Common Law (Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati. 1 - Sir Edward Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I [1600])


states that to be an English 'natural born subject', the father must FIRST be an English 'natural subject' and is considered a 'subject' (albeit the alien born)





Ergo: the 'alien' father was a 'subject' FIRST to issue a 'natural born subject'.





Basically English Common Law says that to be a 'natural born subject' one must be born jus sanguinis AND jus soli.





i.e. born to an English subject and in the dominion(s) of England.





USC Article II requires the same as does English Common Law, but the father in US must first be or become a ('subject') citizen per 14th Amendment.





Problem is, US doesn't automate citizenship of aliens as did the English its subjects.





Therefore a child born of an alien in US is (consistent with the principles of English Common Law & USC 14th Amendment) merely a 'citizen' and not a 'natural born Citizen' \ :D /





Read it for yourself


[/break1]libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27]http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_ ... &Itemid=27



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25024
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#115

Post by Foggy » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:44 am

Yes, MichaelN.





Let's pretend the Wong Kim Ark decision was based on a misinterpretation of English common law.





When the truth is, the decision was based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.





The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China ... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ...





[/break1]law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 49_ZO.htmlYour call can not be completed as dialed. Please hang up and try again.


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you're trying to say?
:think:

gentrfam
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#116

Post by gentrfam » Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:21 am

English Common Law (See The English Common Law (Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati. 1 - Sir Edward Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I [1600])


states that to be an English 'natural born subject', the father must FIRST be an English 'natural subject' and is considered a 'subject' (albeit the alien born)Wrong.





Do you want to actually see Calvin's Case before you point people there?





1. An alien in England, even temporarily, owes the King allegiance, and is, therefore, within the legiance of the King:





The third is ligeantia localis wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.2. The local allegiance owed by a foreigner in the country temporarily is enough to make a natural subject if that foreigner has kids:





Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta.You know, MichaelN, it's not like no one has ever looked at Calvin's Case in the 410 years since it has been written. Dozens, if not hundreds of judges and scholars have written about it. Why is it that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM got it wrong, only to be corrected by you?





I mean, we could take the word of MichaelN and his infinite wisdom, or William Blackstone: "The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."





Blackstone has been quoted by our Supreme Court hundreds of times. How many times has MichaelN been quoted?





Problem is, US doesn't automate citizenship of aliens as did the English its subjects.England didn't automate citizenship, either. Aliens in the country owed a temporary allegiance to the King, but they were still aliens. They couldn't own land, etc. They weren't subjects, or denizens, but aliens who owed a temporary allegiance to the King.





Are illegal immigrants allowed to disobey our laws? Are they allowed to plot against the government? No? Then they owe our government the same temporary allegiance that the alien owed the King in England. That's what WKA decided. That was confirmed in Plyer v. Doe.





And, Foggy, I have to take issue with this:





When the truth is, the decision was based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The court ruled that the 14th Amendment didn't change the law that we'd received from England, only confirmed that it applied even when someone was brown:





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.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25024
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#117

Post by Foggy » Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:39 am

But even if the Fourteenth Amendment had in fact "changed the law that we'd received from England," it would still be the law.The stated basis of the decision was the Fourteenth Amendment. The fact that it comported with English common law seems marginally relevant, to me. If it HADN'T comported with common law, it would still have superseded the common law. The fact that it comported with the common law only made the ruling more palatable.


... and how does that make you feel?
What is it you're trying to say?
:think:

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#118

Post by ballantine » Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:54 am

English Common Law (See The English Common Law (Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati. 1 - Sir Edward Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I [1600]) states that to be an English 'natural born subject', the father must FIRST be an English 'natural subject' and is considered a 'subject' (albeit the alien born)Good grief. I guess we have finally found the dumbest birther. Now Blackstone didn't understand English law. Nor, I guess did Chitty, Cockburn, Dicey, Mansfield. OMG, for 400 years the English didn't understand their own laws. What a messed up country. I guess a birther trying to understand Calvin's Case with all those funny English words is a pretty big challenge.




 ! Message from: Foggy
C'mon now.





Ballantine, I love your work. I study your posts. But PLEASE DO NOT INSULT PEOPLE, even if they are being obtuse.





And for the record, I can show you birthers a lot dumber than MichaelN, my friend. A LOT dumber! ;)



MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#119

Post by MichaelN » Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:14 pm

Yes, MichaelN.





Let's pretend the Wong Kim Ark decision was based on a misinterpretation of English common law.





When the truth is, the decision was based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.





The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China ... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ...





[/break1]law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 49_ZO.htmlYour call can not be completed as dialed. Please hang up and try again.The Wong decision was not based on a misinterpretation of English Common Law - Wong got ruled as 'citizen' only.





The dicta in the Wong case regarding the 'apples for apples' i.e.ENBS = USNBC is based on misinterpretation of English Common Law & there is no need to pretend.



TexasFilly
Posts: 17212
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#120

Post by TexasFilly » Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:24 pm

Hmmm, the Noz gets a time out, MichaelN reappears after a six month hiatus. Fascinating! :-k


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill!

User avatar
Highlands
Posts: 3600
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:19 am
Location: 3rd Rock From the Sun

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#121

Post by Highlands » Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:31 pm

Hmmm, the Noz gets a time out, MichaelN reappears after a six month hiatus. Fascinating! :-k
Off Topic
Off topic, but there are some members who haven't posted here in awhile. Wonder whatever happened to them?


If you took out all of the blood vessels in your body and lined them up, you would be dead. #science

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#122

Post by MichaelN » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:21 pm

Yes, MichaelN.





Let's pretend the Wong Kim Ark decision was based on a misinterpretation of English common law.





When the truth is, the decision was based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.





The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China ... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ...





[/break1]law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 49_ZO.htmlYour call can not be completed as dialed. Please hang up and try again.Seeing as you propose to pretend, have you pretended that Obama is not an Article II NBC?



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14045
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#123

Post by ZekeB » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:29 pm

Oh My Rod! Genuine Pro From Dover legal interpretations have returned. Thay oughtta teach this stuff at Taft Skool of Law and Basketweaving.


Mnoho lidí se za našeho prezidenta stydí.

Žluté vlasy se k oranžové tváři nehodí.

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”