It's "good accounting practice" in my business that only lets me claim labor cost savings on a project if it eliminates full headcount or overtime. Saving an hour here or an hour there of straight time, you can't claim labor savings.

Actually, if I correctly recall the birfer meme on citizenship, there are (at least) 4 classes of citizens:

1. Natural born (which is to say, born in the US to two US citizens)
2. Citizen (born in the US, but lacking two citizen parents)
3. Native born (a category mostly birfer-designed to exclude Native Americans and/or US-based slave decendents (whose slave forebears were not citizens) from being "natural born," while still not denying them "citizenship," and thus bolstering the birfer pretense that the movement and its collective membership is not--first and foremost; always and forever--racism-based.
4. Naturalized

Furthermore, each of those "citizenship" statuses can be lost in all sorts of ways (like inheriting a second citizenship from a parent, being pretend-adopted by a step-parent as a 6-year old child while living in another country, traveling to other countries that birfers think are suspicious, etc.).

If you do that for one, you have to do it for all. Soon your billed time ends up far short of your actual expenses. I have to account for every last minute of my time. The only exception is my break times. Those are already factored into my hourly billing cost. Sure, you can write off those times to some "time wasted" account. When the auditors come visiting, they always have ideas on how my employer can eliminate the time wasted activities.

Or how getting knocked up by a really black African guy when you're white and 17 means you cannot confer your citizenship to your child?

Taitz intends to argue (somewhere) that she did file other lawsuits before the election was over and was told she was too early. That, and the ebil clerks refused to docket stuff.

Anybody have a quick summary of her pre-election results? For example, Lightfoot v. Bowen was not dismissed as unripe was it? Were any of her cases actually dismissed as "too early"? I don't think so...

It's probably a nit worthy of little or no notice, but I think the COA's opinion deals with the issue of competitive standing nicely -- with fuzzy delicacy.

Although I'm far too lazy to review the original arguments and holdings, IIRC, the gubmint argued (rather lamely, IMO) that the candidates could not have won in any event and Judge Carter's opinion gave way too much credence to that premise and line of logic.

By simply relying on the timing issues pertaining to the challenge, I think the 9th effectively erased Judge Carter's holdings to the extent that they might provide authority suggesting that a future challenge brought by a competing candidate would need to meet some sort of viability or probability threshold.

Wise law, IMO.

Taitz never filed a pre-election case:

Keyes v. Bowen was filed after the election in November 2008; it was dismissed (i.e., demurrer granted without leave to amend) for failing to state a cause of action.

Lightfoot v. Bowen was a petition for writ of mandamus first filed in SCOCA (in December 2008) to stop the certification of the California election. SCOCA and SCOTUS issued silent denials, so we'll never know the basis for the denial.

Keyes Barnett v. Obama was Taitz's next case.

Because there's no such thing as bad publicity:

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29503

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29498

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29493

"For the record": Taitz has indicated she will be seeking rehearing en banc. Like a cert. petition in SCOTUS, the discussion and voting on an en banc request is not publicly disclosed. Nonetheless, I predict the 9th will issue an order saying, "The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35."

WND: Election fraud? Sorry, vote's over

That last statement is a lie*; neither of Taitz's two pre-inauguration cases were dismissed as unripe.


* WND lying? Someone alert the media Loren!

The Ninth cut to the chase. It is not that the "candidates" could not have won in some "joke candidate" sense. It is that the "candidates" only brought their suit after it was too late to do anything about it. Also, as a practical matter, wouldn't REAL candidates have brought their suit BEFORE the election?

Standing is an issue set in time. While a suit that becomes moot during the course of litigation can, in some cases, still be decided ("capable of repetition, yet evading review"), standing must exist at the inception of a suit. That's rock-solid. A suit that is moot before you even file it is dead. The Ninth Circuit simply reiterated this.

Comment from ORYR



Well, sure, because courts, judges and justices for the past 100+ years have no idea what Wong Kim Ark held, as opposed to Minor.

Only Apuzzo, Donofrio and all the birthers know what Minor v Happersett REALLY held.

I've always wished they hadn't done the second oath. It just added to the confusion. That was Jarrett and Axelrod being overly cautious. Obama started to say it correctly, then stopped himself because I think he knew saying it correctly would make him look like he was one-upping the CJ or would point out Roberts' mistake. What resulted was even more awkward. If they'd just let it go there would have been less clucking about the whole thing by the haterz.

I agree. Besides, Obama -- like other modern Presidents -- also signed a written oath after the ceremonial oath.

The 9th says it was too late after the election was over. The election ended with the electoral college vote and Congressional count, not the oath. Two hours on inauguration day would make no difference to the decision, IMO.

So you're saying they had until Jan. 8, 2008?

FIFY. Makes sense. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that whatever standing Drake might have enjoyed, it evaporated once he was no longer a candidate. That moment arrived when the Joint Session accepted the Electoral College vote.

IIRC, in early January 2009 Orly was still dicking around with pursuing her obsession over Madelyn Dunham's ashes and procuring a copy of her death certificate. In a post on his blog on January 8, 2009, Doc C observed that Orly was "busily recruiting folks on her web site to file lawsuits, look up real estate records, serve subpoenas for her and write letters to government officials."

As of January 10, 2009 -- two days after the confirmation of the electoral college results -- Orly was still counting on the Supreme Court to accept cert in Lightfoot v. Bowen:

2009 actually.

Eggsactly.

Scuse please, I'm getting all the fail hazy in my head. Is this the one with the Shroud of Orly in the 9th circuit and where she was told they had it well in hand?

I concur in part and dissent in part.

Once the election takes place (the Tuesday after the first Monday in November), a candidate's ability to be elected through the electoral college is fixed. Congress can meet thereafter and accept the vote of the Electoral College, but if it does not, it has to select among the "eligible candidates" pursuant to the Constitution. Thus, the electorate's ability to s/elect Electors ends on that day in November from the 2nd to the 7th because neither the Constitution nor any implementing statute provides for a "do over" election.

As a result, in my view of Drake (and what I would argue), the challenge has to be sufficiently before the November election day to allow for removal from the ballot of any ineligible candidate notwithstanding the finding in Drake.

I believe all of the legal challenges should be teed up and ready to file by a candidate of any party who will be on the ballot the day after the Democratic convention ends. My suspicion is that the birthers will still be scrambling to file lawsuits -- and won't file anything coherent -- through the end of December 2012. If Pam Barnett and Tracy Fair Dorsey are leading the charge they may not get it together until 2016.

For a $250,000 ever-green retainer, and $650 an hour, I would file a competent (although losing) lawsuit for the buffoons, in order to try to obtain a SCOTUS ruling before November 6, 2012. But there's no way Orly Taitz, Gary Kreep, Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio, Van Irion or their legions of buffoon followers will be able to do that. Clearly, an incompetent legal hobbyist like Orly Taitz (and what Van Irion also appears to be) would have no chance of filing, let alone serving, a challenge that adequately raises and preserves the issues for SCOTUS review.

Yepper. Dat be de one.

Several of us were there. It was fun!

Complete with the traditional Thai food afterwards. Delicious Thai Eats and good company.