TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#151

Post by Slartibartfast » Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:47 pm

Thanks everyone!



ND,



This isn't about Mario, it's about me learning what is correct (and throwing it in Mario's face if it turns out he's wrong or dishonest)



Piffle and Realist,



Let's ignore the value of Tisdale as precedent (which I accept to be roughly nil). I was arguing that Ankeny was a precedent (or, per Piffle, an authority) cited in Tisdale (which was apparently incorrect, but it has certainly been cited in other birther cases), thus fulfilling the definition of "precedent" that Mario gave from Blackstone:









“An adjudged case or decision of a court, considered as furnishing an example or authority for an identical or similar case afterwards arising or a similar question of law. . . . A rule of law established for first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1059 (5th ed. 1979).



So, as I read it, the decision of the court in Ankeny has been used to furnish authority for similar cases (but not Tisdale) and therefore is properly referred to as a "precedent", according to Blackstone. Is this incorrect?



Are any of the following statements inappropriate?



Ankeny is a valid precedent in any US court.



Ankeny is a non-binding precedent outside of Indiana.



Ankeny is a relevant authority regarding natural born citizenship.



As far as I can tell, the only mistake I made was in thinking that Tisdale cited Ankeny (and thus thinking my question was relevant to this thread :oops: ), but otherwise the difference between (non-binding) "precedent" and "authority" is stylistic, not substantive.



Is my understanding correct?


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6982
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#152

Post by Slartibartfast » Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:48 pm

Looks like :sterngard: answered my question before I asked it.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#153

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Mar 21, 2015 2:53 pm

Don't panic! :sterngard: :towel: :geezertowel:

Your understandings are correct. Blovario? Not so much.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 9445
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#154

Post by Notorial Dissent » Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:19 am

Slarti, FWIW, I was being facetious about Blovario. Otherwise, I think the point is on your side.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15097
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#155

Post by Suranis » Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:16 am

well the fact that Appuzo is focusing on Tisdale is because he knows it actually useless as precedent. But The wat to counter than is to list the very long list of federal cases that ruled specificity that the Prez is Eligible.



And he knows about them as I threw the list at him more than once.

Apuzzo will try and icnore that and will try to drag the conversation back toTisdale as "the only case Obots rely on" and will generally go into a total panic when you do that. Go ahead. Its fun

Thats what Appuzo always tries to do. Narrow the focus of the conversation to what he wants. dragging larger reality into it frustrates his ass

And if you need a list. here it is





Every federal court to rule on a birther case has rejected it. See, e.g., Allen v. Soetoro, 4:09-cv-00373 (D.Ariz. Jan. 29, 2010) (dismissing FOIA action seeking documents related to Obama’s eligibility); Am. Grand Jury, No Number Assigned (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (letter from court staff attorney explaining that court could not accept “presentment” prepared by public, seeking to indict Obama for ineligibility to hold office and related matters);

In re Am. Grand Jury, No. 3:09-mc-00215 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 6, 2009) (summarily rejecting grand jury “presentment” challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve as President as having no force under U.S. Constitution or law);



Barnett v. Obama, 8:09-cv-00082-DOC- AN, 2009 WL 3861788 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility; criticizing conduct of plaintiff’s counsel in case filed on behalf of active and former military personnel state representatives, taxpayers, relatives, and political candidates), order clarified, 2009 WL 8557250 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2009), aff’d sub nom. Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, Nos. 09-56827, 10-55084 (Feb. 2, 2012);



Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa.

2008) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility; characterizing various plaintiff’s claims as

frivolous), aff ’d, 586 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1126 (2009);



Berg v. Obama,

1:08-cv-01933 (D.D.C. June 9, 2009) (dismissing qui tam case claiming Obama is not a U.S. citizen),

recons. denied, 656 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2009), aff ’d, 383 F. App’x 7 (D.C. Cir. 2010);



Beverly v. Fed. Election Comm ’n, 1:08-cv-01538-AWI-GSA, 2009 WL 196361 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2009)

(dismissing case that included claims regarding Obama’s eligibility), aff ’d, No. 09-15562 (9th Cir. July 1, 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1732 (2010);



Bowhall v. Obama, No. 2:10-cv-0609, 2010 WL 4932747,

(M.D. Ala. Nov. 30, 2010) (dismissing complaint alleging, among other things, that Obama is not a

“natural born citizen,” as frivolous), aff ’d, No. 10-15938-C (11th Cir. Apr. 4, 2011) (affirming order that complaint was frivolous);



Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama,

No. 6:08cv03405, 2011 WL 4916569 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 17, 2011) (dismissing case brought on, among

other bases, that, as non-white, Obama is not eligible to hold office), aff ’d, No. 09-5012 (8th Cir. Jan. 2012);



Cohen v. Obama, No. 1:08-cv-02150, 2008 WL 5191864 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility), aff’d, 332 F. App’x 640 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, No. 09-5012 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 25, 2009);



Connerat v. Obama, No. 8:11-cv-01359-SDM-TGW (M.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2011) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility);

Cook v. Good, No.4:09-cv-00082, 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D. Ga. July 16, 2009) (denying TRO seeking stay of military orders pending confirmation of Obama’s eligibility; dismissing case), appeal dismissed, No. 09-14698-CC (11th Cir. Nov. 24, 2009);



Cook v. Simtech, No. 8:2009cv01382 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2009), recons. denied, (Aug. 6, 2009) (finding motion to reconsider “frivolous and wholly without merit);



Craig v. United States, No. 5:09-cv-00343-F (W.D. Okla. Apr. 3, 2009) (dismissing case seeking declaration regarding definition of natural born citizen as “incomprehensible and frivolous”), aff ’d, No. 09-6082, 340 Ct. 141 (2009);



Craig v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland F. App’x 471 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. et al, No. 5:10-cv-00659-C (W.D. Okla. July 3, 2010) (dismissing case challenging various government publications defining term ”natural born citizen” as unconstitutional);



Craig v. Holder, No. 11-9501 (10th Cir. Mar. 17, 2011) (affirming Board of Immigration denial of request to certify that Craig is “natural born citizen” eligible for presidency), reh ’g denied (Apr. 29, 2011);



Craig v. United States, No. 5:10-cv- 01345-C (W.D. Okla. Jan. 4, 2011) (Dismissing VOIA action brought to obtain documents related to federal definition of “natural born citizen”), appeal voluntarily dismissed, No. 11-6017 (10th Cir. Feb. 10,2011);



Dawson v. Obama, No. 2:08cv02754, 2009 WL 532617 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2009) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility);



Essek v. Obama, 08-379-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Jan. 15, 2009) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility);



Florida et al. v. U.S. Dep. of Health & Human Svs. No. 3:10-cv- 91-RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2010) (denying motion to intervene based on interest in pressing charge that President Obama is not a natural born citizen in lawsuit challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), recons. denied (Apr. 23, 2010);



Hamblin v. Obama, 2:09cv00410, 2009 WL 2513986 (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2009) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s and McCain’s eligibility), appeal dismissed, 09-17014 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2009);



Hamrick v. Fukino, No. 1:08-cv-00544 ACK-KSC,

2009 WL 1404535 (D. Haw. May 20, 2009) (dismissing case seeking copy of Obama’s certified birth

certificate to determine whether he is natural born citizen);



Herbert v. US, No. 3:08-cv-00634-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla. July 1, 2008) (dismissing case alleging, among other things, that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts violated the Constitution in refusing to accept plaintiff’s case);



Herbert v. Obama, et al, No. 3:08-cv-01164 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2008) (dismissing complaint alleging, among other things, that Obama is not natural born citizen);



Herbert v. United States, et al, No. 3:08cv01201 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 20,

2009) (dismissing complaint alleging, among other things, that Obama is not natural born citizen), appeal

dismissed, No. 09-10661 (11th Cir. Aug. 3, 2009) (dismissing appeal as frivolous and wholly without

merit), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 562 (2009), reh’g denied, g130 S.Ct. 1169 (2010);



Hollander v. McCain,

566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008) (dismissing case challenging McCain’s eligibility); Hollister v.

Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing interpleader case challenging Obama’s

eligibility), subsequent order, 258 F.R.D. 1 (Mar. 27, 2009) (imposing sanctions for filing claim that was

not “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing

existing law or for establishing new law,” under Rule 11), aff ’d, Nos. 09-5080 & 09-5161, 368 F. App’x

154 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1017 (2011), reh ’g denied 131 S. Ct. 1627 (2011);



Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. v. Salazar et al, No. 2:10-cv-01663-MLCF-JCW (E.D. La. Mar. 5

2011) (denying motion to intervene based on interest in pressing charge that President Obama is not a

natural born citizen in lawsuit challenging Obama Administration’s Moratorium on deepwater drilling in

Gulf of Mexico);



Hunter v. U.S. Supreme Court, No. 2:08cv00232, 2009 WL 111683 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16,

2009), (dismissing case alleging, among other things, that Obama is not eligible), appeal dismissed, No.

09-10246 (5th Cir. July 23, 2009), No. 10-10009 (Feb. 4, 2010), No. 10-100064 (Apr. 9, 2010);

In R Paul Andrew Mitchell, 304 F. App’x 113 (3rd Cir. Dec. 22, 2008) (denying petition for writ of

mandamus regarding challenge to Obama’s eligibility);



Jones v. Obama, No. 2:10-cv-01075 (C.D. Cal July 20, 2010) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility);



Judy v. McCain, No. 2:08cv01162 (D.Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (dismissing case challenging McCain’s eligibility);



Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009) aff ’d, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 663 (2010);



Mackay v. Obama, No. 2:11-CV-05458-JP (E.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 2011) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility), appeal voluntarily dismissed, No. 11- 3862 (3rd Cir. Nov. 2, 2011), appeal dismissed, No 11-3967 (Dec. 8, 2011);



McLanahan v. Obama, No. 2:11-CV-00374-EFS (E.D. Wash. Oct. 13, 2011)

(dismissing complaint challenging, among other things, Obama’s eligibility);



Morrow v. Obama, No.

1:08-cv-22345 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2009) (dismissing complaint challenging Obama’s eligibility);



Neely v. Obama, 2:08-cv-15243 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2009) (dismissing case challenging, among other things,

Obama’s eligibility);



Patriot’s Heart Media Network, Inc. v. Soetoro, No. 1:09-mc-00442-RCL (D.D.C.

Sept. 10, 2009) (rejecting request to convene grand jury to investigate Obama’s eligibility; dismissing petition for lack of jurisdiction);



Purpura v. Sebelius, No. 3:10-CV-04814, 2011 WL 1547768, (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2011) (dismissing case challenging Patient Protection and Affordable Care on various grounds, including that was not signed into law by a person eligible to be President of the United States), aff ’d, 446

F. App’x 496 (3d Cir. 2011) cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1037 (U.S. 2012) reh ’g denied, No. 11-7275, 201

WL 538800 (U.S. Feb. 21, 2012);



Rhodes v. Gates, 5:09-cv-00703-XR (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2009)

(denying TRO seeking to stay military orders due to challenge to Obama’s eligibility);



Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 409-CV-106CDL, 2009 WL 2997605 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009) (denying TRO seeking to stay military orders due to challenge to Obama’s eligibility; criticizing complaint as frivolous), recons. denied, 2009 WL 3111834 (Sept. 18, 2009), subsequent order, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2009)

(imposing $20,000 sanction for violating Rule 11), aff’d, 368 F. App’x 949, (11th Cir. 2010), reh’g

denied, No. 09-15418-BB (11th Cir. May 14, 2010), app. for stay denied, 131 S.Ct. 44 (2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 918 (2011);



Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing

case challenging McCain’s eligibility);



Roy v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 2:08cv01519, 2008 WL 4921263

(W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2008) (dismissing case challenging eligibility of Obama and McCain);



Stamper v. United States, No. 1:08 CV 2593, 2008 WL 4838073 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2008) (dismissing case

.

challenging McCain’s and Obama’s eligibility, finding that appeal could not be taken in good faith);

Strunk v. N.Y. Bd. of Elections, No. 1:08-cv-04289-ARR-LB (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008) (dismissing case

challenging, among other things, Obama’s eligibility), appeal dismissed, No. 08-5422 (2d Cir. Nov. 14,

2008);



Strunk v. U.S. Dept. of State, 693 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. Cir. 2010) (dismissing part of FOIA

case regarding Obama records allegedly related to eligibility), mandamus denied, No. 08-5503 (D.C. Cir.

Jan. 8, 2009), mandamus denied, No. 09-5322 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 25, 2009), appeal dismissed, No. 10-5092,

(D.C. Cir. Aug. 26, 2010);



see also Strunk v. U.S. Dept. of State, No. CIV.A. 08-2234 RJL, 2012 WL

562398 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2012) (dismissing part of FOIA case regarding records of Obama’s mother

allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility);



Strunk v. U.S. Dept. of State, No. CIV.A. 08-2234 RJL, 2012

WL 562398 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2012) (dismissing part of FOIA case regarding records of Obama’s mother

allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility); In re Super Am. Grand Jury, No. 1:09-mc-00346-RCL (D.D.C.

July 2, 2009) (denying leave to file grand jury presentment challenging Obama’s eligibility);



Taitz v.Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (dismissing complaint challenging Obama’s eligibility), recons.

denied, No. 1:10-cv-00151 (D.D.C. June 18, 2010), 2d mot. for recons. denied, 754 F.Supp.2d 57 (D.D.C.

2010);



Taitz v. Astrue, 806 F. Supp. 2d 214 (D.D.C. 2011) (dismissing FOIA complaint seeking

documents allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility), recons. denied, No. 1:11-cv-00402 (D.D.C. Oct. 17,

2011), appeal pending, No. 11- 5304 (DC Cir. filed Oct. 31, 2011);



Taitz v. Ruemmler, No. 1:11- CV- 01421, 2011 WL 4916936 (D. D.C. Oct. 17, 2011) (dismissing FOIA complaint seeking documents

allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility), mandamus dismissed, No. 11-5329 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 2012),

appeal pending, No. 11-5306 (appeal filed Nov. 2, 2011);



Taitz v. Astrue, No. 1:11-cv-00519-SOM -RLP

(D. Haw. Oct. 26, 2011) (rejecting ex parte application to compel discovery regarding Obama’s eligibility

in related case pending in the District of Columbia);



Thomas v. Hosemann, No. 2:08-cv-00241-KS-MTP

(S.D. Miss. Dec. 18, 2008) (voluntarily dismissing complaint challenging Obama’s eligibility; case

dismissed with prejudice);



Thomas v. Hosemann, No. 1:08-mc-00280 (D. Haw. Dec. 18, 2008)

(dismissing action seeking to compel Hawaii Dept. of Health to provide access to documents allegedly

related to Obama’s eligibility);

Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3:12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012)

(dismissing complaint challenging Obama’s eligibility; finding that Obama is ”natural born citizen”

because he was born in Hawaii), appeal pending, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir. filed Jan. 30, 2012). See also

Lakin Article 138 Complaint, No Number Assigned (US Army Admin. Law Div. Dec 11, 2009) (rejecting Article 138 Complaint as deficient);

Lakin Court Martial - United States v. Lakin, No 20100995 (Mil. Dist. of Wash. DC Dec. 16, 2010) (court martial finding Lakin guilty of, among other things, failure to report to deploy; rejecting claim that his failure was based on legitimate questions as to Obama’s eligibility), appeal withdrawn, (A. Ct. Crim. App. July 28, 2011);

Lakin v. Lind, No. ARMY MISC 20100778 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 12, 2010) (order) (denying petition for writ of mandamus to compel discovery factual matters allegedly relating to Obama’s eligibility in court martial proceedings).





Sorry about the formatting, I copied it from a PDF, and I had to wangle the formatting to make it somewhat legible. (edited to make it better)

You could also play the Radio interview where he had obviously never heard of Wong. That always makes him fume


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15097
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#156

Post by Suranis » Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:17 am

Of course there is always the birther scorecardhttp://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf



You could also ask him how many cases have cited his briefs as precedent. He'll love that.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 15890
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#157

Post by RTH10260 » Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:01 am





Of course there is always the birther scorecardhttp://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf



You could also ask him how many cases have cited his briefs as precedent. He'll love that.







Looking at the 2012 footnote it seems to me that the birther scorecard could for posterity be updated with some references that TFB did not follow.



I didn't find this case on the forum radar







Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama,No. 6:08cv03405, 2011 WL 4916569 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 17, 2011) (dismissing case brought on, among other bases, that, as non-white, Obama is not eligible to hold office), aff ’d, No. 09-5012 (8th Cir. Jan. 2012);



User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#158

Post by Epectitus » Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:36 am







Tisdale is useless as precedent, much less binding precedent in the 4th Circuit or anywhere else for that matter.





The point I always make when Mario tosses out the "Tisdale is not precedent" canard is to assert that he is unclear on the concept. Nobody is saying that Tisdale created precedent, it followed precedent.


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#159

Post by Piffle » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:29 am



Tisdale is useless as precedent, much less binding precedent in the 4th Circuit or anywhere else for that matter.



The point I always make when Mario tosses out the "Tisdale is not precedent" canard is to assert that he is unclear on the concept. Nobody is saying that Tisdale created precedent, it followed precedent.



Why yes, I think that is practically perfect! I believe that even he-who-must-not-be-questioned might agree with that.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15097
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#160

Post by Suranis » Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:57 am

But but but if it followed precdent then the Obots must be looking elsewhere for their NBC mistake!!! And we cant have that :(


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”