Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

User avatar
AuBricker
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:32 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#76

Post by AuBricker » Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:51 pm

Did the Supreme Court did hear a Birther case, I would envy future law students who get the opportunity to read the Court's decision from their casebooks and discuss it in class. They will certainly enjoy themselves.



Bob Weber
Posts: 686
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:26 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#77

Post by Bob Weber » Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:49 pm




I





What I would like is for SCOTUS to grant cert. and summarily issue a 2 paragraph per curiam citing to Wong Kim Ark and what the word "natural" meant in 1787, and affirm the Indiana court (either appellate or SCOTIN). With four of the justices -- Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens -- concurring but expressing their opinion that cert. should have been denied, just to shake the birfers up.





The less chat about the obvious the better.I thought it was just barely within the realm of possibility that they might do just that with the Donofrio/Wrotnowski suits. But they didn't.



User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6043
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#78

Post by June bug » Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:01 pm

AuBricker wrote:


I would hope that Justice Scalia drafts that opinion and uses some of his famous biting wit to describe the inanity of the Birther beliefs briefs.There - fixed it for ya'!



User avatar
AuBricker
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:32 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#79

Post by AuBricker » Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:38 pm

AuBricker wrote:


I would hope that Justice Scalia drafts that opinion and uses some of his famous biting wit to describe the inanity of the Birther beliefs briefs.There - fixed it for ya'!Thank you! That too.



OReally Factor
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:52 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#80

Post by OReally Factor » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:03 pm

Looks like the IN Supremes will get their chance to play "Whak a Mole"Latest entry ...2/11/10 APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR TRANSFER (9) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (9) BY MAIL DATE 02/11/10 JS 02/15/10 -xx



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

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#81

Post by ballantine » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:16 pm

AuBricker wrote:


I would hope that Justice Scalia drafts that opinion and uses some of his famous biting wit to describe the inanity of the Birther beliefs briefs.There - fixed it for ya'!Thank you! That too.The birthers are blissfully unaware that there has probably been no Justice in history who has relied more upon Blackstone and the common law in interpreting the constitution than Scalia. I would love to see one of these clowns disparage the influence of Blackstone and claim the constitution was based by Vattel in front of Scalia.



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#82

Post by mimi » Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:01 pm

It was the Indiana Appeals Court that defined natural born, right? So then they go to Indiana Supreme Court, and then to SCOTUS?I don't know the correct terminology or the correct sequence.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43129
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#83

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:59 pm

It was the Indiana Appeals Court that defined natural born, right? So then they go to Indiana Supreme Court, and then to SCOTUS?I don't know the correct terminology or the correct sequence.You got it all right.



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#84

Post by nbc » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:57 pm

The Supreme Court of Indiana will rule that the lower court was correct in dismissing the lawsuit based on lack of standing and refuses to address the obiter dicta



OReally Factor
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:52 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#85

Post by OReally Factor » Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:29 am

and the wheels grind slowly forward ...2/26/10 APPELLEE'S NOTICE REGARDING TRANSFER (6) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (6) BY MAIL 02/26/10. MC 03/01/10



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.)

#86

Post by Tesibria » Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:36 pm

Update to docket:3/02/10 ***********TRANSMITTED ON TRANSFER 03/02/10*********** AB 03/02/10


“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
bob
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#87

Post by bob » Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:41 pm

Update to docket:3/02/10 ***********TRANSMITTED ON TRANSFER 03/02/10*********** AB 03/02/10I'm not fluent in Indianese; does that mean the Indiana Supremes granted cert.?


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#88

Post by Kriselda Gray » Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:37 pm

Given the appellate ruling in Ankeny, if the proposed law in Indiana that would allow voters to challenge a candidate's qualifications to be on the ballot passes, would that mean if someone challenged Obama's qualifications, the challenger would automatically lose? Or could the challenge lead to another suit challenging the Ankeny ruling?Also, if the Indiana Supreme Court refuses to take up the Ankeny case OR if the Indiana Supreme Court upholds the case, would Ankeny be able to appeal it to the US Supreme Court? Or would he have to go to a District Court first? Or is this a case that would even be eligible to heard in any court outside the state of Indiana?Thanks!! :D


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

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.)

#89

Post by Tesibria » Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:14 am

Update to docket:3/02/10 ***********TRANSMITTED ON TRANSFER 03/02/10*********** AB 03/02/10I'm not fluent in Indianese; does that mean the Indiana Supremes granted cert.?NO. It means that the appellant has requested transfer and the record is "getting ready" to go to the Supreme Court.IF the Supreme Court accepts the case, there will be a docket entry re; "Transfer Granted."This info is based on their website - and I called the clerk just to confirm that my understanding was correct.


“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

OReally Factor
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:52 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#90

Post by OReally Factor » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:19 pm

Update to docket:3/02/10 ***********TRANSMITTED ON TRANSFER 03/02/10*********** AB 03/02/10and another ...4/01/10 THIS MATTER HAS COME BEFORE THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ON A PETITION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE PETITION WAS FILED PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 57. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. ANY RECORD ON APPEAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW, ALONG WITH ANY AND ALL BRIEFS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ALL THE MATERIALS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER OF THE COURT HAS VOTED ON THE PETITION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THAT JUSTICE'S VIEWS ON THE CASE IN CONFERENCE WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES. BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT NOW DENIES THE APPELLANT'S PETITION TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION. RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. KJ 04/05/10



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#91

Post by mimi » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:36 pm

Is it?{Deleted 'dead' video.}



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34347
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#92

Post by realist » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:39 pm

BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT NOW DENIES THE APPELLANT'S PETITION TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION.Chalk up another one for PJ, who predicted the Indiana Supreme Court would decline to hear it. :-bd


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7646
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#93

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:39 pm

So it's unanimous. What a surprise. [snark]





Watching Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse draft a Petition for Writ of Certiorari and navigate the rules of SCOTUS should prove entertaining. -xx


"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43129
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#94

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:00 pm

Ya know, if it weren't a dead issue it would be fun for SCOTUS to grant cert., allow briefs to be filed, then summarily affirm the intermediate appellate court in Indiana per curiam (9-0). It would have the birfer community a' twitter (literally and figuratively) for at least 6 months or so.





So I say - go for cert.! Don't screw it up! Let Orly Taitz help you!














That way, she'll screw it up!



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#95

Post by mimi » Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:06 pm

It's not dead? Deleting the video I posted about.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43129
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#96

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:59 pm

It's not dead? Deleting the video I posted about.Rumors of its death were greatly exaggerated. There is still the Chalice-like motion for reconsideratrion (because the cloud formations are different today). And then then birfer wet dream, certiorari from SCOTUS. So, it is not well and truly dead -- yet.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#97

Post by bob » Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:29 pm

Case is dead.Sekrit Stuffs!
Today was the 90th day after the Indiana Supremes denied transfer.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34347
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#98

Post by realist » Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:35 pm

Case is dead.Sekrit Stuffs!
Today was the 90th day after the Indiana Supremes denied transfer.
So now we know anyone born in the State of Indiana, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents, are natural-born citizens. :P It is the law of the land...in Indiana. \ :D /


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 3079
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.)

#99

Post by Dallasite » Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:27 am

I'm the only member of my family not born in IN. My mother, father and all 7 sisters were born in various cities in IN but I was born in Arkansas. Fortunately, both parents were US citizens, so I still qualify! \ :D /
Edit: Miss Spelling


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

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”