Orly Taitz resurfaces in New Hampshire

[Senegoid]

I've quickly scanned this thread, and missed the point where KBO gets banned. Could someone give a link to that vicinity? Was it in this thread? Was it Marley23 who did the evil deed, or one of the other moderators?

I won't dispute that Mr. KBO was far out there and violated a few board rules here (to-wit: Don't piss off the moderator! ) but I'm having a bit of a problem with the principle of the thing in this case. Two points:

• As obnoxious and (dare I say it), uh, ... imperfectly informed as Mr. KBO seemed to be, it did seem that a lot of people on this thread were having a lot of fun with this, perhaps at KBO's expense. Why do we need to ban someone or even simply lock a thread (as I have seen done a few times) when in fact there is a discussion on-going and people are interested in it? ETA: It comes off looking like the moderator is deciding what topics we are allowed to discuss, a.k.a., censorship.
  
  Onomatopoeia: "Let's start a petition to bring her back. She was fun."
  Oliveritaly: "Awww Marley... It was just getting really good, then you banned him ... Fun while it lasted I guess."
  ... and others.
  
• Clearly, Marley23 posted several comments earlier in the thread indicating increasing annoyance with KBO. So what was the last straw that did it? (Sorry, like I said, I skimmed this thread and missed it.) More to the point, Marley engaged KBO in actual debate in a number of his posts. Something seems wrong when a moderator first engages the problematic poster in debate and then bans him. This comes off just too close to looking like the moderator bans someone that he disagrees with.
  
  Once a moderator engages a poster in discussion, should that moderator recuse himself from moderating that thread, handing any such decisions off to a guest moderator?

(Not sure if this post belongs here in this thread that it's about, or should be in ATMB.)

[a35362]

I for one don't have any problems with booting some whackjob out of a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance. Some people can't or won't engage with facts and logic and, you know, reality. When we're just spinning our wheels engaging some troll or wingnut, I don't see the point. YMMV, of course.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

I've quickly scanned this thread, and missed the point where KBO gets banned. Could someone give a link to that vicinity?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...&postcount=246

It appears it was for being a troll, and on general principles for being a jerk.

[davidm]

KBO's remark to me about FEMA camps (pointed out above by Fear Itself) was so over the top that it appeared, at least to me, that KBO was simply trolling and probably not even sincere in her arguments. Apparently Marley23 felt the same way.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I think it was more that she was just too fucking crazy at that point. Given her YouTube account it seems clear that she's not just trolling- or that she puts an unprecedented level of effort in if she is.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

Was it Marley23 who did the evil deed, or one of the other moderators?

It was me. I don't doubt KenyanBornObama's sincerity. Since her grasp of reality was tenuous to begin with, I figured we were not going to get any more quasi-rational posts from her once she started talking about Obama throwing everybody into FEMA camps. Discussion of moderating goes in ATMB, but I'll point out that I'm essentially the only mod for this forum (twickster covers for me when I'm unavailable), so unlike in other forums, I can't really recuse myself.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Since her grasp of reality was tenuous to begin with, I figured we were not going to get any more quasi-rational posts from her once she started talking about Obama throwing everybody into FEMA camps.

Y'know, it just now occurs to me, there ought to be another forum on this Board just for that kind of discussion . . .

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Start here. You'll find that and much besides. There is a curious strain of American far-RW populists that emerged in the 1960s, perhaps, who, near as I can figure, simply do not seem to accept the legitimacy of the modern, post-Civil-Rights-Revolution American political system. They're like Catholic Sedevacantists, they think the America they were born into or should have been has somehow been usurped by an unconstitutional order. And they think they are not only as qualified but as authorized to interpret the law as the courts are. Sometimes they even set up their own "courts."

I once even encountered a short book in the remainders bin rejecting the constitutionality of the Civil War Amendments. (I think the argument was that they were enacted before the Confederate states were re-admitted to the Union, therefore not properly ratified.) I dunno if the author was one of these or some kinda neo-Confederate, but there's considerable overlap.

[j666]

I was starting to feel like a bunch of kids surrounding the Weirdo in the playground and taunting her ...

But what is this gold fringe business? The official flag doesn't have a gold fringe, so no court with a flag with a gold fringe can issue a valid judgement?

Never mind, I don't want to know ...

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by j666

I was starting to feel like a bunch of kids surrounding the Weirdo in the playground and taunting her ...

But what is this gold fringe business? The official flag doesn't have a gold fringe, so no court with a flag with a gold fringe can issue a valid judgement?

The theory appears to be that a fringeless flag in the courtroom of a federal court signifies the Court has "common-law jurisdiction," while a gold-fringed flag is an "Admiralty Flag" signifying "Admiralty jurisdiction" which, apparently . . . diminishes a defendant's/litigants rights, somehow. (Actually, I'm fairly certain any court in the U.S. could lawfully sit with no flags in the room at all; the judge might be violating some patriotic ordinance by leaving it outside, but not so as to void his jurisdiction.)

Originally Posted by j666

Never mind, I don't want to know ...

What Board do you think this is?! You'll learn it and like it!

[j666]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What Board do you think this is?! You'll learn it and like it!

Keep it up, I'll start asking about conspiracy theories.
Moderately coherent conspiracy theories.

Does the U.S. actually have Admiralty courts?

[Exapno Mapcase]

The U.S. doesn't have special Admiralty courts. Regular federal courts handle those cases.

Which is what makes that conspiracy theory so very, very special.

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by j666

Never mind, I don't want to know ...

That's what ALL the SHEEPLE say!!!1!!11!!¡!¡!¡!

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Which is what makes that conspiracy theory so very, very special.

It's really one of my personal favorites. It's like the Trading Spaces* of CTs. "No, you can't put the gold fringe on there, it clashes with the common law!"

*The good ones, with the cute hostess and the hyper-cool Asian-American designer and before Ty became a total douche.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by j666

Keep it up, I'll start asking about conspiracy theories.
Moderately coherent conspiracy theories.

Oh, that's easy, they're all true.

Originally Posted by j666

Does the U.S. actually have Admiralty courts?

Just like every seafaring nation, we have a specialized body of admiralty, or maritime, law, but the general federal courts handle it (or state courts, where federal law allows them jurisdiction). There is generally no right to jury trial in admiralty cases before a federal court (in state court, that question is governed by the law of the state), which fact might play a role in the CT; but, admiralty cases are all civil, not criminal, cases.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Which is what makes that conspiracy theory so very, very special.

Like all special conspiracy theories, there is the vaguest hint of truthiness to this one: admiralty courts were used by colonial authorities to reduce litigants' rights, since English law did provide for separate admiralty courts at the time.

No idea how we got to the nonsense about US admiralty courts and gold fringes and whatnot.

Maybe if I ever get hauled up for doing something naughty I'll denounce the tribunal as a court-martial because the witness box is made of teak.

[j666]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

That's what ALL the SHEEPLE say!!!1!!11!!¡!¡!¡!

Back off, I owned a Scion.

So, back to the lunatic fringe theory:

Flags with gold fringes are not regular courts, they are admiralty courts, so their decision do not apply to ... what, the standard civil issues?. BUT, in the U.S. admiralty courts ARE regular courts, Federal or state. And they are civil courts.

Okay, I get that. Pardon me while I go do some research on the Illuminati.

Wait, what does teak have to do with anything? Tell me that's a whoosh. Please.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by j666

Wait, what does teak have to do with anything? Tell me that's a whoosh. Please.

Well, teak comes from Southeast Asian. Y'know what else comes from Southeast Asia?!

[Inner Stickler]

Pho?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

Pho?

Exactly! ("Heroin," "Commies," or "incurable diseases" would also have been correct.)

[j666]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Exactly! ("Heroin," "Commies," or "incurable diseases" would also have been correct.)

Not just Islamic Malaysians?

[Rhythmdvl]

Where can I get some Icelandic Mayonnaise?

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, teak comes from Southeast Asian. Y'know what else comes from Southeast Asia?!

That's the children's version.

In reality teak comes from former British Colonies. You know what else is a former British Colony? That's right, Australia. What lives in Australia? Criminals and kangaroos. What's named after kangaroos? Kangaroo court. So, ipso facto and caveat emptor, a court with teak furnishings can't possibly be a real court.

[Truman Burbank]

If I ever get in serious legal trouble, will you represent me?

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

If I ever get in serious legal trouble, will you represent me?

Well, you understand that I would *want* to help a fellow believer, but there may be slight jurisdictional issues. The years I spent off-planet in the hands of the [nameless] have, of course, given me the clarity of mind to see through these petty earthly conspiracies, but they've also made me a citizen of the wider galaxy and no longer just of earth. For some reason, these so-called "courts" object to these established facts.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by j666

Wait, what does teak have to do with anything? Tell me that's a whoosh. Please.

It's more of a whood, really.

[Zakalwe]

Wow. What a great response from the Obama campaign:

http://store.barackobama.com/feature...ugBOFB20111230

They're selling mugs with Obama's birth certificate on them. Mine is already on the way...

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

Wow. What a great response from the Obama campaign:

http://store.barackobama.com/feature...ugBOFB20111230

They're selling mugs with Obama's birth certificate on them. Mine is already on the way...

Mugs are for drinking tea and coffee. You know what country grows tea and coffee? That's right - Kenya. Connect the dots, sheeple!

[Asympotically fat]

Has it even been properly established that Obama was born on the planet Earth? I'm not one to draw inferences where there are none to be drawn whatsoever, but he doesn't seem to be too keen to talk about THAT.

Obama = space Muslim, might sound a bit crazy, but if you think about it for hours and hours and hours on end whilst taking prescription medicine it all starts to make sense.

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by These are my own pants

Obama = space Muslim, might sound a bit crazy, but if you think about it for hours and hours and hours on end whilst taking prescription medicine it all starts to make sense.

Some over-the-counter cough medicines work pretty well too.

[Asympotically fat]

Oh btw, I've got loads of really, really, REALLY good sources for my last post.

Like The Children's Illustrated Guide to Intergalatic Jihad by Denzil Washington

[Asympotically fat]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

Some over-the-counter cough medicines work pretty well too.

As long as it's not illegal, but impairs your abilty to think rationally, it's good!

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

Wow. What a great response from the Obama campaign:

http://store.barackobama.com/feature...ugBOFB20111230

They're selling mugs with Obama's birth certificate on them. Mine is already on the way...

First time I've ever reposted anything on Facebook. Well, first time this month.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by These are my own pants

Has it even been properly established that Obama was born on the planet Earth? I'm not one to draw inferences where there are none to be drawn whatsoever, but he doesn't seem to be too keen to talk about THAT.

How dare you make such an outrageous claim? How can anyone doubt that Obama was born here on earth? I have absolute proof of it. It has recently been revealed that Obama has been identified as having visited Mars at least twice as part of the CIA's Mars program, the existence of which was confirmed by Eisenhower's great-granddaughter, yes, General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower, stand up, salute, and place your hand over your heart when I mention that name, you commie doubter. Would a space-born Obama need the assistance of the CIA to visit Mars? I think not!

[Asympotically fat]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

How dare you make such an outrageous claim? How can anyone doubt that Obama was born here on earth? I have absolute proof of it. It has recently been revealed that Obama has been identified as having visited Mars at least twice as part of the CIA's Mars program, the existence of which was confirmed by Eisenhower's great-granddaughter, yes, General of the Army Dwight David Eisenhower, stand up, salute, and place your hand over your heart when I mention that name, you commie doubter. Would a space-born Obama need the assistance of the CIA to visit Mars? I think not!

Whilst it is beyond dispute that Obama was on Mars sometime during the eighties, I remain skeptical about some of the claims made in the article.

[CaMaven]

Too bad you threw Kenyan born off. She was posting some interesting stuff. How come you imposed a more stringent courtesy standard on her than those criticizing her?

[Inner Stickler]

We're assholes.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, it looks like this whole silly business and the silly people behind it still ain't goin' away.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by CaMaven

Too bad you threw Kenyan born off. She was posting some interesting stuff. How come you imposed a more stringent courtesy standard on her than those criticizing her?

I explained this already, but in addition to being abusive, she was complete detached from reality. And in fact the other posters did a better job of follow the rules than she did, which isn't surprising since most of the people who were talking to her are long-time posters. Dopers enjoy playing with somebody like that for a short time, but it gets old. I consider it pretty much a mercy banning.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by CaMaven

Too bad you threw Kenyan born off. She was posting some interesting stuff. How come you imposed a more stringent courtesy standard on her than those criticizing her?

There is a presumption against moonbattery of any kind here. It kind of goes along with the whole "fighting ignorance" thing.

There's no such presumption against out-there political opinions.

[CaMaven]

Don't know much about the camps, but do know that the hated KBR (of Halliburton) was contracted with to build some and that was under Bush, not Obama, although he has continued it.

[Marley23]

I eagerly await the credible cite you're going to post for that claim.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Presumably there were some private contractors building camps for victims of the Gulf hurricanes.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Presumably there were some private contractors building camps for victims of the Gulf hurricanes.

How could anyone possibly confuse those for detention camps?

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Marley23

How could anyone possibly confuse those for detention camps?

Easily. Quickly set up. People displaced, confused and unsure of their future (or even their short-term safety). Massive amounts of people cut off from their private support network (friends, neighbors, family). Vulnerable people with private-sector workers in charge of their fate. Can't you see how the stress would build? Is it any wonder that some insiders started calling them the tension camps?








C'mon, say it with me. Out loud if you have to.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Rhythmdvl

Easily. Quickly set up. People displaced, confused and unsure of their future (or even their short-term safety). Massive amounts of people cut off from their private support network (friends, neighbors, family). Vulnerable people with private-sector workers in charge of their fate. Can't you see how the stress would build? Is it any wonder that some insiders started calling them the tension camps?








C'mon, say it with me. Out loud if you have to.

When you all say it out loud, I can't concentrate. Maybe you could find a nice quiet camp for that purpose.

[SCSimmons]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, it looks like this whole silly business and the silly people behind it still ain't goin' away.

Wow--that's really reaching. "The case being referred to is Minor vs. Happersett case from 1875 in which the Supreme Count defined natural born citizen as one who has 2 parents which were citizens at the time of the child’s birth." Well, aside from the fact that this case was about women's suffrage, not about Presidential qualifications, it looks to me like the Court was very clear in their decision that their definition was not intended to be applied to that:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
I.e. we're not sure whether someone born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents is a natural-born citizen or not; but since the petitioner in this case was born to citizen parents, and that obviously makes them a citizen, then we don't need to decide that question today.

I'm amazed the court is hearing this; I predict a motion to dismiss being summarily upheld once this all starts ...

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's an administrative law court, which has no authority to decide constitutional issues anyway. I strongly suspect the matter is a procedural one, and the presidential qualification issue has been tacked on to make it look like it will actually be considered.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by SCSimmons

Wow--that's really reaching. "The case being referred to is Minor vs. Happersett case from 1875 in which the Supreme Count defined natural born citizen as one who has 2 parents which were citizens at the time of the child’s birth." Well, aside from the fact that this case was about women's suffrage, not about Presidential qualifications, it looks to me like the Court was very clear in their decision that their definition was not intended to be applied to that:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
I.e. we're not sure whether someone born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents is a natural-born citizen or not; but since the petitioner in this case was born to citizen parents, and that obviously makes them a citizen, then we don't need to decide that question today.

I'm amazed the court is hearing this; I predict a motion to dismiss being summarily upheld once this all starts ...

Maybe their taking the case to directly answer the question of "someone born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents" and put the second prong of the Birther's attack to rest. Not that the birthers will rest, of course, but at least future legal challenges will be moot.

[Really Not All That Bright]

It's a state court. Even if it wasn't an administrative law court, its ruling won't be binding on anyone except Georgia officials.