TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14551
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#76

Post by Reality Check » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:25 am

I left this comment for Mario at his blog:





Mr. Apuzzo





I trust that you have made the wise choice and have decided not to offer to take up the appeal for Mr. Tisdale. It would be a losing proposition for you. Judge Gibney made it very clear in his decision that the courts will have nothing to do with your “two parent citizen” nonsense and that Wong Kim Ark and not Minor v Happersett is the defining case for determining who is a natural born citizen. By taking up the appeal you would expose yourself to ridicule when the appeal fails and to having another “frivolous appeal” added to your record. Even worse, there is the real possibility that the 4th Circuit might decide the 3rd Circuit erred in not imposing monetary sanctions against you the in the Kerchner appeal. They might decide more severe action is warranted when they see your name on another ridiculous case that would be a waste of time for the already overloaded courts.





I think confining your legal nonsense to your blog is exactly the right choice.




"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Jill Christie
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:18 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#77

Post by Jill Christie » Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:21 am

Standing ovation!!!!!!



Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#78

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:52 am

=D> =D> =D>



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#79

Post by Foggy » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:00 pm

That's gonna burn his butt. I'll be mildly surprised if he just lets that one slide on by ...


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

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 8325
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#80

Post by Chilidog » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:50 pm

I left this comment for Mario at his blog:





Mr. Apuzzo





I trust that you have made the wise choice and have decided not to offer to take up the appeal for Mr. Tisdale. It would be a losing proposition for you. Judge Gibney made it very clear in his decision that the courts will have nothing to do with your “two parent citizen” nonsense and that Wong Kim Ark and not Minor v Happersett is the defining case for determining who is a natural born citizen. By taking up the appeal you would expose yourself to ridicule when the appeal fails and to having another “frivolous appeal” added to your record. Even worse, there is the real possibility that the 4th Circuit might decide the 3rd Circuit erred in not imposing monetary sanctions against you the in the Kerchner appeal. They might decide more severe action is warranted when they see your name on another ridiculous case that would be a waste of time for the already overloaded courts.





I think confining your legal nonsense to your blog is exactly the right choice.




I don't see it there.



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 25609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#81

Post by Foggy » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:54 pm

I don't see it there.Mario never lets any comment get through that isn't worshipful of Mario.But trust me, he read that and it is burning his ass today. I can smell the smoke. :lol:


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

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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#82

Post by mimi » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:01 pm

nolu chan has the notice of appeal in his tisdale folder on scribd. Idunno if we have that. It doesn't say anything much.nolu's tisdale folder on scribd:[/break1]scribd.com/collections/3496046/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036]http://www.scribd.com/collections/34960 ... 2-cv-00036nolu has been adding a bunch of stuff to scribd. main link to nolu's account:[/break1]scribd.com/nolu%20chan]http://www.scribd.com/nolu%20chan



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14551
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#83

Post by Reality Check » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:00 am

Poor Charles, he could have sure used the help from Leo and Mario on this. He completely forgot to address one reason for the dismissal. He doesn't cite a single case. He just repeats the two citizen parent nonsense.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#84

Post by realist » Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:21 pm

New Docket Entries...





02/23/2012 [link]4,[/link] INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF by Appellant Charles Tisdale. [12-1124] (CH)








02/23/2012 [link]5,[/link] INFORMAL APPENDIX by Charles Tisdale. [12-1124] (CH


Some "fun" letters in the Appendix. -->





links shortly


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14551
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#85

Post by Reality Check » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:23 pm

Well that is one big pile of stupid :turd: So his "injury" is because is a natural born citizen and he might just run for president.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#86

Post by Piffle » Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:43 pm

New Docket Entries...





02/23/2012 [link]4,[/link] INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF by Appellant Charles Tisdale. [12-1124] (CH)








02/23/2012 [link]5,[/link] INFORMAL APPENDIX by Charles Tisdale. [12-1124] (CH


All things considered (not the least of which is Tisdale's pro se status), the brief puts the Minor/Vattel arguments directly in play. If you're in the Majorly Minor camp (i.e., the born-again two-citizen-parent congregation), Tisdale hasn't done all that bad a job at reciting your holy scriptures. And whatever camp you're in, there's a good probability, IMHO, that we'll an authoritative ruling from an Circuit Court of Appeals directly on point.





The 4th could still sidestep the issue by concluding that because the plaintiff lacked standing (and standing is jurisdictional) that there is no need to reach the issue of the legal meaning of NBC. I hope that however the 4th dispenses of the matter, the panel will define NBC in affirming judge Gibney.





Guess we'll see.



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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#87

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:28 pm

It may be a pile of crap, but it's written better than anything Taitz or even Apuzzo could defecate onto the record.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14551
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#88

Post by Reality Check » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:58 pm

Did you notice he cites the "[highlight]Dread[/highlight] Scott v Sandford" case? :lol:


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 8325
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#89

Post by Chilidog » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:08 pm

Did you notice he cites the "[highlight]Dread[/highlight] Scott v San[highlight]d[/highlight]ford" case? :lol:FTFY



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14551
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#90

Post by Reality Check » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:09 pm

Thanks, I was just about to fix that.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#91

Post by Suranis » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:28 pm

Dredd hates it when you misspell his name.http://www.internet451.com/wp-contentsr ... Walter.jpg


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

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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#92

Post by realist » Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:04 pm

New Docket Entries...





03/08/2012 6 APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Local Rule 46(c)) by David Kolker for Federal Election Commission.[998806176] [12-1124] David Kolker





03/08/2012 [link]7,[/link] INFORMAL RESPONSE BRIEF by Appellee Federal Election Commission. [12-1124] David Kolker


THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE


NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE BOTH


PARENTS TO BE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES





Even if Tisdale had standing to bring his claim against the Commission, his


legal theory is frivolous. As the district court correctly observed, the Supreme


Court has long held that “those born in the United States are considered natural


born citizens.” Tisdale v. Obama, No. 12-00036 (E.D.Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order


dismissing case with prejudice), slip op. at 2 (citing United States v. Ark, 169 U.S.


649, 702 (1898)). And “citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth


under the circumstances defined in the [C]onstitution." Ark, 169 U.S. at 702.




ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#93

Post by bob » Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:09 pm

From the comfort of his ivory tower, Apuzzo will be pissed (and unconvinced).


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8463
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#94

Post by verbalobe » Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:16 pm

From the comfort of his ivory tower bubble (99-44/100% pure), Apuzzo will be pissed (and unconvinced).A modest proposal.



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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#95

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:23 pm

U. S. v. Ark? How about Wong?



A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#96

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:53 pm

Even if Tisdale had standing to bring his claim against the Commission, his


legal theory is frivolous. As the district court correctly observed, the Supreme


Court has long held that “those born in the United States are considered natural


born citizens.” Tisdale v. Obama, No. 12-00036 (E.D.Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order


dismissing case with prejudice), slip op. at 2 (citing United States v. Ark, 169 U.S.


649, 702 (1898)). And “citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth


under the circumstances defined in the [C]onstitution." Ark, 169 U.S. at 702.


And citing it completely incorrectly, too, as noted earlier on in this thread. This case, as in most of the Chinese immigration cases of the time, is almost always cited by its full name, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, and when it isn't cited that way, it is because somebody fucked up. If this name were to be abbreviated, it would be abbreviated as the family name, which is Wong. However, for obvious reasons relating to confusion (and principles basic to the Blue Book), it is cited properly by a non-confusing name.





This is why you Shepardize.



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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#97

Post by June bug » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:04 pm

Besides the incorrect cite, I find the this "informal" brief beyond informal. In fact, I find it downright sloppy.Appellant Charles Tisdale’s suit against the Federal Election Commission(“Commission”), President Barack Obama, and other defendants appears to rest on the erroneous legal theory that a person is not eligible to be President unless [highlight]both of his or her parents were born[/highlight] in the United States.Tisdale does not argue that one's parents must be born in the United States to make one a "natural born citizen", merely that they must be US citizens. He's flatly wrong on that, but you'd think David Kolker could have at least gotten Tisdale's theory right.



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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#98

Post by realist » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:57 pm

Hey, RC... Mario grew a pair, but...





03/20/2012 10 [link]INFORMAL REPLY BRIEF,[/link] by Appellant Charles Tisdale. [12-1124] (CH)











03/20/2012 11 [link]APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL,[/link] (Local Rule 46(c)) by Mario Apuzzo, Esq., Amicus Curiae for Charles Tisdale.[998814857] [12-1124] Mario Apuzzo











03/20/2012 12 MOTION by Appellant Charles Tisdale Mario Apuzzo, Esq., Amicus Curiae to file amicus curiae brief (FRAP 29(e))[highlight] without consent of all parties on appeal outside time allowed by FRAP 29(e)[/highlight].. Date and method of service: 03/20/2012 US mail, ecf [998814859] [12-1124] Mario Apuzzo





[link]Motion,[/link]





[link]Brief,[/link]


Amicus curiae plans on litigating the Obama eligibility issue in the state courts of the State of New Jersey. He wants to do what he can to make 11 sure that other courts do not adopt the decision of the District Court which would give the decision a binding effect throughout the nation. Given the great amount of research and time that he has devoted to the “natural born Citizen” issue, he believes that he will be able to provide information and arguments to the Court which will assist it in making a just decision. =))





Oh, please allow this brief. :-


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#99

Post by bob » Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:49 pm

Amicus was advised that he would have to pass an examination on electronic case filing in the Fourth Circuit and then register for suchfiling. He was not informed that he had to be a member of the Fourth Circuit to beable to file electronically. On March 13, 2012, amicus took and passed the test. By email dated March 14, 2012, the Clerk’s Office advised amicus that he would also have to be a member of the Fourth Circuit Bar in order to be able to file the amicus brief. On March 14, 15, and 16, 2012, amicus [highlight]attempted to find a Virginia attorney who would move his admission application. He was not successful[/highlight]. On Monday,March 19, 2012, he contacted various attorneys in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.[*] He then called [highlight]Wayne Steedman in Maryland who agreed to sign his application[/highlight]. Upon receipt of the signed application by Mr. [/break1]callegarysteedman.com/staff.htm]Steedman, amicus uploaded it to the Court’sweb site and paid his $196.00 fee on March 19, 2012.* Don't tell Apuzzo, but:

Sekrit Stuffs!
Pennsylvania and New Jersery are in the Third Circuit.


Imagex5 Imagex2 Imagex3 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14551
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

TISDALE v OBAMA (4th Cir.)

#100

Post by Reality Check » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:53 am

Apuzzo is actually arguing that Wong Kim Ark confirmed the definition of NBC from Minor. G. Wong Kim ArkWong held that a child born in the U.S. to domiciled alien parents wasa Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” Wong’s holdingdid not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Nowhere in the questionpresented or in Wong’s holding do we find the words “natural born Citizen.”The Court said in its holding that it was deciding “the single question.” Theonly question before the Court was whether Wong was a FourteenthAmendment “citizen.” Wong’s holding did not alter or amend the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” other than to increase the class ofpeople who can be “citizens” and who then can go on to procreate “naturalborn Citizens.” Yet, relying upon Wong’s holding, the Court took Wong’sdefinition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” and used that definition todefine an Article II “natural born Citizen.” From the clear text of the Wongholding which relates only to a “citizen of the United States,” Wong’sholding does not support the Court’s statement regarding a “natural bornCitizen.”[highlight]The doubts identified by Minor in 1875, whether a child born in theU.S. to alien parents is born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., werefinally resolved by Wong.[/highlight] As we saw in Minor, Fourteenth Amendment“jurisdiction” analysis has no part in determining whether one is a “naturalborn Citizen.” Accepting its definition of those who make up the “naturalborn Citizen” class, Wong explained that Minor was not committed tofinding that another class of persons, children born in the U.S. to alienparents, were not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Id. at 679-80.If Wong had been born a “natural born Citizen” like Virginia Minor had been, the Court would not have had to analyze whether he was born “subjectto the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and thereby create another class of “citizen.”With the definition of a “natural born Citizen” never being in dispute, whatbecame “well settled” with Wong was the meaning of a FourteenthAmendment “citizen,” not the meaning of an Article II “natural bornCitizen.” After all, it is unreasonable to think that the Framers would haveused a presidential eligibility clause whose definition was not already “wellsettled” in 1787 or which could be expanded in later years to include morepeople without a constitutional amendment....[The stupidity goes on for pages]


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”