As far as being someone's pet, even someone of your limited intelligence and defective memory should remember that I haven't been frequenting these birther (now, I will use the term pejoratively) threads, and I hadn't realized that Jeff Winston had gotten your goat [pun intended].
Basically, it appears that you wish to drive folks off this thread, on the basis of your disagreement with them. A disagreement that you can't be bothered to detail. It's always: "I've done this before," or "I've done this many times," or "Everyone is a liar but me."
Seriously, it's an indication of a very, very small mind.
I think his goal is to dominate the threads with his bullsh*t.
You debunk claim A, he ignores that it's been debunked and proceeds to claim B.
You debunk claim B, he ignores that it's been debunked and proceeds to claim C.
So on for maybe a couple dozen different claims.
So then some time goes by, another thread pops up, and he reposts claim A. And you start all over again.
Only rarely does he come up with anything new.
The claim in 621 that Rawle's slavery case was ruled against unanimously seems to be a new one. I hadn't seen it before. I actually looked for some evidence for it and found nothing.
Birthers often make flat assertions: "It takes two citizen parents plus birth on US soil to be a natural born citizen. Always did." "Rawle was a liar." Often they do so without evidence. Sometimes they take some existing evidence and misrepresent or twist it. Sometimes they take some minor authority and ignore every major authority to make their claim. Sometimes they just ignore the evidence and keep making the claim, as DL does when he says that Roberts' book represented the Supreme Court of PA.
If a minor authority agrees with their BS, then he's God. If a dozen major authorities disagree, then it's "a wall of text," "just lawyers."
If DL has any evidence that Rawle's slavery case was ruled against unanimously, I'd like to see it.
The idea of course is to try and discredit one of our most esteemed early legal scholars. He has to do this because Rawle says, in absolutely clear and unambiguous language, that DL's claims are total bullsh*t.
So let's try and discredit Rawle because he lost a case on the constitutionality of slavery. Meanwhile, never mind that David Ramsay, who wasn't even a lawyer, lost HIS case ON WHAT CITIZENSHIP ENTAILED, a massive 36 to 1, and the Father of the Constitution led the charge. THAT doesn't matter, THAT's totally irrelevant, because DL thinks he can use THAT to promote his BS.