Nope. A "dispute," perhaps. (there are birfer court cases, after all) But as a matter of law? Not so much.
In the alternative, allow me to borrow the plaintiff's words.

Go see the Doc.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/06/ ... ng-events/

That's just a patent lie. The judge didn't "find" any such thing... in fact made no "finding," much less that there was any "substantial dispute" on the question of Obama's eligibility and a definition of nbc.
As to the further BS put forth by Klayman, that the defense had not briefed the subject of nbc, that's true. There was no need to, however, as they'd moved to dismiss on the basis of FL election law which has nothing to do with whether Obama is a natural born citizen.

Nor do I believe the judge ever said "natural born citizen" WILL be decided. That would essentially be denying the MtDs, which he sure as hell should not be doing. And if he'd done so, we'd know it, and I'm sure we'd have a notice of appeal by now.

I think Collette's talking about the federal judge in Georgia(?)( I can't remember zackly where he is, but it was someplace in Southbuttfuckville) who said in some forum or presentation outside of court there was doubt.

That was the wacko Judge Parker in Alabama. And it was not a finding.

He may have been thinking of the Alabama Supreme Court Justice Parker who made some birfy remarks after joining the others in striking down Hugh McInnish's petition.

viewtopic.php?f=88&t=6908&hilit=alabama+ballot+challenge&start=1075#p359678

If Collette were serious, why didn't he give a citation to what this 'federal judge found.' Never mind. Bare assertions and suspicions work so much better in convincing a judge.

Well of course it wasn't a finding but the Collette way of thinking is a judge said so so it's so and I was trying to think of a federal judge who said anything remotely close. And my apologies to Barry Ragsdale, BamaLaw, and Talladega Knight coz if I'd known it was Alabama I would not have called it South...well what I called it.

I believe that in the Tennessee Liberty Legal case the district court judge, in refusing to remand to state court, wrote something like

The birthers misinterpret that and read into the court's holding what they hope the court meant. Remember the "embarrass" fiasco?

"It's because he's BLACK, isn't it!!??"

Oh, wait. Wrong cite?

"The issue ...is certainly substantial" means "there's got to be something to it".

OK, I see how they got some hope from that one.

What I find particularly baffling with the birthers' two citizen parent debate is how obviously they haven't thought it through. At the very least they are not clueing in their $upporter$ who don't have the good sense to think about it.

Briefly, it creates a line of segregation among natural born Americans citizens: those who have two American citizen parents (which qualify for president) and those who don't. They fail to grasp the social ramifications of creating two classes of natural born citizens that don't exist and would by their definition a) disqualify past presidents and b) disqualify candiates they otherwise approve. Then again, we know that in the latter case, birthers have no problem creating constitutional rules and interpretations that counter their own argument as long as it doesn't apply to Obama.

Bottom line, though justifying themselves with their absolute love for the constitution, birthers argue tooth and nail against it because in the end it's really about them not being able to come to terms with the president's skin color, his funny name and an incredible willful gullibility to flagrant political propaganda. This says a lot about their understanding of red-white and blue "patriotism", but certainly doesn't say what they think it says.

Why would they think it through? All birthers know is they can't say "The President is a ni---"

So they come up with the most flagrantly bogus, stupid conspiracy theory of all time. The two citizen parent thing is a pure flight of fancy unconnected to anything resembling reality. Some birthers realized early on that the forged birth certificate idea was so stupid nobody in their right mind would believe it (but then they found Donald Drumpf).

Hence, the resort to Vattel. None of these people had ever heard of him before, but he said something vaguely agreeable to their position, so they latched on to him like a face-hugger from Alien. His book even had a title that shows up in the Constitution. That made him super-better.

The Putz is the king of being able to spout thousands of words in a row completely empty of any semantic content, all on the same subject that he is completely wrong about.

I wrote this over at Doc's and thought I'd cross-post it here.

In my opinion talk of "building bridges" and "undemonification" simply emboldens these fools. They are wrong about President Obama and the law. They need to be told that truth over and over and over again, not encouraged by critiquing their ridiculous drafts of court filings. You're empowering them. I think it's wrong.

Agreed. Not because I don't believe that "building bridges" and "undemonizing" an ideological opponent is an incorrect strategy, but because I don't think, IMHO, that it addresses birthers' unspoken motive that embarked them in their Sisyphean battle in the first place. 1) the President is black and 2) he's not a republican, that is all. Collette may post as a talkable guy, but as long as he doesn't address his personal motives, it's a circle jerk ad nauseum (Wong Kim Ark SC decision said this, no it said that, this says this, no it meant that, blah, blah, blah)

Besides, why should anyone help to polish a turd?

The fundamental problem for birthers isn't something that can be cured by criticizing their legal arguments. That's because they seek to undo a democratic election by simply attempting to figure out the "right" argument that would make such a process legal. David Farrar is a good example of this. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the constitution and for all Americans, such a remedy simply does not exist outside their conspiracy-addled minds.

I really hate it when defendants try to flim-flam the court!

Collette answered someone else's post right after G's June 16, 2012 3:36 post and hasn't been seen since. Yes, it's the weekend and we all have lives (hopefully). It would nonetheless be interesting if M. Collette responded to the post. His response or lack thereof would be an indication as to how he really feels about "building bridges" and "undemonizings". I have a clue as to how this will also turn out.

Frankly, any counter-argument to birthism other than "shut the fuck up you stupid bastard" overly dignifies the opposition.

While plenty of us have, in fact, exhaustively refuted this racist conspiracy theory, I do not believe it is out of respect for the subhuman scum who are birthers, but those who may have momentarily been suckered by the nonsense, or those who can be assisted in fighting birthers.

Point a: birthers are like scientologists, more coming out than going in and those in make a point of avoiding facts. Self-serving Trump and Arpaio haven't changed the birther momentum. All they're doing is preaching to the choir.

Point b: Fogbow motto - Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow. Doin' it right.

According to Collette -

Final - Plaintiff’s Verified Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

h/t RC

This is gonna be great...

Busy judges just love to read third grade (and idiotic) gotcha comments interspersed throughout a legal document which is also bereft of any legal argument.

From the new Plaintiff opposition:



So ol' Jerry insists that only someone of his choosing saying things are A-Ok would satisfy him. Of course, I'm sure that list of Collette-accepted people is quite short - Arpaio, maybe Corsi. A list of people that would never state a document was real if it actually confirmed the facts of birth as Hawaii states them. That's not the way evidence works. From the point of view of courts, the certified CoLB is pretty much accepted as an original document.

Also from the new complaint:



Besides the contention that American law should be based on 400+ years of readings, it ignores the fact that a number of courts have directly and expressly made a decision about such things. In Apuzzo's recent NJ case he pushed all of it and it was expressly rejected. It was also presented, and rejected, in Georgia. The fact that they decided it was complete and utter BS does not mean they didn't consider it. It means they thought it was wrong, and it is.

This bring to mind Lt. Col. Lakin, and his repeated insistence that he asked up and down the chain of command about whether his orders were legitimate and that no one would give him an answer. Some birthers still trot that one out. But in his trial it was made quite clear that he was told, repeatedly and specifically, that his orders WERE valid. That just wasn't the answer he wanted to hear, so he treated it as no answer at all. But an answer of "No, you're wrong" IS an answer.

Likewise, the fact that a number of courts have looked at Mario's bluster, looked at the two-parent theory, and looked at the way birthers interpret Minor and WKA and said "You guys are wrong" does not mean they ignored the issue. It simply means the law doesn't support what the birthers want it to.

Mr. Collette is very upset at his stuff being called "baseless." He writes purty. Not the words, the formatting. Lots of white space and indents. He could teach Orly a few things.

I thought Jerry, over at Doc's, agreed to removing the following?