“Ankeny considered and rejected claims. Leo and Taitz are 0 for 89 or so by now.”
Not sure how Taitz got in our discussion and Phillip Berg, Gary Kreep and others got left out. I take it to mean that you’re using Taitz name to try to ridicule me or my position - pretty uncool of you. In the “0 for 89 or so”, none of the “89 or so” have been on the merits of the case - only on “standing”.
I live in Texas. What an Indiana judge says in Ankeny v Daniels has no bearing on me. Now, if that was Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority, I would agree that the subject was closed.
““What’s the harm in pursuing both avenues of removal?”
Because the birther avenue has 0.000000000% chance of success ... and its wrong anyway.”
9 zeros. So what you’re saying is that there is a chance.
“Wrong”???? Sorry. I don’t get what’s wrong about it.
“Nice theory, but its both wrong and out of sync with what courts will say the Constitution says and requires. ...The End.”
I did not realize you had an inside track to all the courts. Must be nice to be connected.
Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Enjoyed the discussion. Take care.
“only on “standing”.”
only?!?! NO court will even grant standing ... yeah, add a few more zeros to that 0.0% odds. lol
“I did not realize you had an inside track to all the courts. Must be nice to be connected.”
The “inside track” is simple. Just read decisions! It helps to read and UNDERSTAND the Ankeny decision. Just read it and then read it again until you ‘get it’. See if a real constitutional lawyer can parse it for you. It’s a slam dunk. Any court deciding will just xerox the Ankeny decision and say the same thing. It doesn’t matter what state you live in, the legal reasoning will be the same, the legal conclusion will be the same - Obama will be declared eligible.
““Wrong”???? Sorry. I don’t get what’s wrong about it.”
Read: