https://queenofliberty.com/2013/08/14/mark-levin-rolls-out-his-new-book/
Mark Levin: Reader says not so fast Mark
Mark was shown where he made a mistake in stating in a footnote that delegates from Vermont belatedly attended the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787. In reality, Vermont was not even a state until 1791. Before that it was a disputed territory between New Hampshire and New York. So Vermonters were not asked to nor were they qualified to attend the Philadelphia convention. He gave his challenger no credit for reading his book carefully and bringing this non-trivial mistake to his attention. He then refused to sign the book on the page where the footnote appeared and showed distinct signs of impatience and annoyance when he opened the front of the book and began to sign it.
At this point, Mark was challenged about Cruz’s eligiblity. But the challenge did not happen as Mark said it did. The challenger asked this: “Under what possible definition of the term natural-born Citizen does your friend Ted Cruz qualify to be president?” At this same time the challenger placed an annotated copy of an earlier TheRidgewoodBlog posting repeating CNN’s recent article questioning Cruz’s eligibility, and was pointing at the document. After cursing at the challenger , Mark replied: “I never said he was a natural-born Citizen.”, upon which his challenger said: “But you must be a natural-born Citizen to be President!”. Mark then said: “No you don’t!”, and the challenger said “Yes, you do. Read the Constitution.” Levin was showing no signs of changing his tune. The challenger then turned around and left the booksigning. There was no time during any of this dialogue for Mark to ruminate on the challenger’s motivations or talk about Canada or Cruz’s mother or anything like what he said on his Radio program
I think that part on Ted Cruz, the person must have misheard Levin. Or there was some other miscomunication. While I admit I like a lot of what Levin proposes, I am not a Levin groupie or daily listener. However, I do know that he has said many times that he believes Cruz is a natural born citizen rule because his mother was a US citizen, regardless of the fact he was born in Canada.
Go ahead, have a constitution argument with Mark Levin. Get ready to get your arse kicked.
His arguments in favor of Cruz’s eligibility couldn’t be more flimsy, #2.
Just because I was curious I looked it up —
Cruz IS a natural born citizen (see paragraph (g) below)
and therefore MEETS all of the eligibility requirements to be president:
=======================================
US code for Natural born citizen:
USC Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I >Section 1401
“Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
=======================================
Pardon me #4, but I failed to find the term natural-born Citizen in any of the information you provided. All I found was the term citizen at birth. Are you equating the term citizen at birth with the term natural-born citizen? If so, why?
A “natural born” citizen is a person who is entitled to citizenship “by birth” or “at birth” (aka a “citizen at birth”).
The term “natural born citizen” is interchangable with “citizen at birth”.
How that is defined can vary from country to country.
In the USA, USC Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I >Section 1401
“Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth” is where it is defined.
#6, then why did they say “born Citizen” instead of “natural-born Citizen. Your argument does not hold up.
Hey PJ:
New radio commentary from Mr. Levin from the first hour of his nationwide show on Thursday, August 29th seems to show that the interaction he had with the Ridgewood man at Bookends is still sticking in his craw. Note at least one detail he provides for the first time during his August 29th broadcast (by employing the technique of a simulated colloquy) corresponds with a detail provided by a witness and publicized previously by you in this article (“After cursing at the challenger, Mark replied: “I never said he was a natural-born Citizen.”, upon which his challenger said: “But you must be a natural-born Citizen to be President!”. Mark then said: “No you don’t!”, and the challenger said “Yes, you do. Read the Constitution.”). This seem to show that he is once again alluding to events that occurred on Sunday, August 18th at Bookends in Ridgewood.
Anyway, here’s what Mark Levin said on his radio program on Thursday, August 29th. FYI, a segment about a critic of Levin’s new book precedes the segment about Cruz’s eligibility (it’s relevant, trust me):
Partial Transcript of the Mark Levin Show aired live on Thursday, August 29, 2013
(prepared using the podcast recording of the show provided free of charge at http://www.marklevinshow.com)
[start at 13:30 of the podcast recording]
Mark Levin: [Discussing a critic of his latest book “The Liberty Amendments, Restoring the American Republic”] It’s hilarious! [chuckles] But it’s really kinda … thin stuff. Silly stuff. I’m thinkin’, this guy used to run Pepperdine? And he’s at the Hoover Institute? David Davenport? That’s scary! And I may or may not address this later. I think I will. And, uh…the person who I will have on, his name is Rob Nadelson. Senior fellow in Constitutional Jurispri … prudence at the Independence Institute, the Montana Policy Institute, he’s a former law school professor, and he’s a scholar. And there are others. We had Randy Barnett on here. Georgetown University Law School. Professor. Great guy. Brilliant! I don’t always agree with him, but I don’t always agree with anybody. And he was on here last week. And what do the opponents have? Scare tactics, generalities, superficiality? I mean, folks … they can support the status quo. They can pretend that we’ll elect sixty conservatives to the senate, over and over and over again, to reverse course. They can pretend that all we need is a Republican president, to keep nominating Republicans to the Supreme Court. We’ve been doing that, by the way, for a long time! Somehow they progress, they evolve. But we’re in this position today, where the Constitution is really abused. It’s been disassembled. And some of us want to bring it back together. And then he says I must be the utopian. I must be the czar coming up with these amendments. Ladies and gentlemen, he clearly didn’t read the book! What do I say in the first chapter? These are just my reform proposals. My amendment proposals. Obviously, I’m not king of some state convention! The delegates to the state convention, they’ll make up their own minds, based on what the state legislature suggest that they do! I’m laying them out as what I consider possibilities that actually might help us! But I have no way of imposing them! So how am I a czar? This is what I mean. This guy used to head Pepperdine, and now he’s at the Hoover Institute! It’s stupid! You want to address this issue, I warn all you liberal crackpots, all the pseudo-conservatives, all the guys with degrees and the … and the funny hats at graduation and all the rest, I want to warn you all! You better be prepared. Because some of us has actually really, really dug in to this, and we know far more than you’ll ever know. So when you come up with your scare tactics, and your silly arguments, and you … and you throw your myths around, some of us do know what the framers said! Some of us actually know what the founding fathers said. Some of us actually know what occurred before the nation actually became a nation. What conventions were. How they were conducted. Who sent delagates. How they were selected. How they voted. We know! And you don’t. It’s obvious. With your silly … articles. But we’re ready! I’m ready. I can’t wait! But they don’t matter, ladies and gentlemen, you matter! It’s important that you’re convinced! Which is why I wrote “The Liberty Amendments”. And not one of these people so far, has proposed a serious alternative for restoring the republic. Not one! Because they have none. Not one of them has proposed a serious alternative based on what our framers said, and wrote! Not one! [Bumper music begins playing softly] They defend the status quo! And they pretend the status quo, is what the framers would support! Out of one side of their mouth, and out of the other side of their mouth, they condemn what Washington is doing. They don’t make sense! It’s time to give it up! It’s time to embrace what the framers said. Alright, more when I return! [Bumper music grows louder]
[Cut to different bumper music at 17:50 of the podcast recording (new segment)]
Announcer: This is America’s Constitutional Convention! The Mark Levin Show! Call in now. (877) 381-3811.
Mark Levin: Alright, we got a full board, I’ll get to the callers in a second. I want to throw this issue out there. Ready for this one? Uh, oh, here it comes! Do you know Ted Cruz, Mr. Producer? You’ve heard of that name? Senator from Texas? He’s an American Citizen. A naturalized American Citizen. He can run for President of the United States. Oh, it’s true! It’s true! Here’s the Cato Institute, of all places, libertarian think tank, Ilya Shapiro. “As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas continues to stride across the national stage. And with his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state”, writes this writer, “by now many know what has never been a secret. Ted Cruz was born in Canada.” [Shouting] Oh my God! [Speaking at normal volume] “But does that mean that Cruz’s presidential ambitions are gummed up with marble [sic] syrup, or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa Caucuses? Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards, having been unable to find any proof that Obama was born outside the Uni …” Uh, oh! “…by forcing their comrade in boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate? No, actually it’s not even that complicated. You just have to look up the right law. It boils down to whether … wh … ba … whether Cruz is a natural-born Citizen” … quote, unquote … “of the United States. The only class of people constitutionally eligible for the Presidency. You see, the founding fathers didn’t want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly. So what’s a natural-born Citizen?” Well, may I add this? It’s not in the column. Seems like every jerk with access to Google has decided what a natural-born Citizen is. And they insist that everybody agree with them! “… but the Constitution doesn’t say. But the framers’ understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the first Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents, in a manner regulated by federal law, and birth within the nation’s territory, regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions and in various contexts.” [Shouting] Oh my God! [Speaking at normal volume] It’s true! [Shouting] Wait a minute! We have a meeting scheduled in my mother’s basement to go over this, eh … eh … we’re gonna, we’re gonna post a lotta comments on the Mark Levin eh … eh social sites! [Speaking at normal volume] Let me continue. “There’s no ideological debate here. Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe and former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore, among other cases, coauthored a memorandum on March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain’s eligibility. Recall that McCain, lately one of Cruz’s chief antagonists, was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone. In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth, as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later, that is, naturalizes, or who isn’t a citizen at all, is what we’re talking about. So the one remaining question is whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth. And that’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children became nationals and citizens in the United States at birth. In addition to those who were born in the United States, or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens, or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere…” That would be people from Mars, I think… “…citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here. That single parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 – Cruz was born in 1970 – someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least ten years, including five after the age of fourteen, in order to be considered a natural-born Citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, …” Is Delaware part of America? I think so. “… lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her thirties. So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given there’s no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen?” Oh lord, I go down this … this road, all the kooks will be shooting at me. And he says “It may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run for the White House, but his eligibility for that office shouldn’t be in doubt. Remember George Romney? Born in Mexico. Remember Barry Goldwater? Born in the Arizona Territory. Cruz is certainly not the hypothetical foreigner who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander-in-Chief.” Here’s the practical problem, … uh, in addition to all this. Do you think any court in the land … any court, because, you have to adjudicate this, right? Do you think any court in the land is gonna say “You know what? You were born of an American citizen mother in Canada, therefore you’re disqualified”? There’s really no historical basis for this. And actually, I could have added to this piece, you look at the 1790 Naturalization Act, which had some very terrible things in it, by the way, Cruz would qualify under the 1790 Naturalization Act! And there were a lot of …. founding fathers involved in that Act … the act of the first Congress. So can we cut it out? No. No, pe … people do not want to cut it out, they’re gonna keep it up, there gonna show up here and there, waving some crap in front of my face or somebody else’s, [Shouts] “Don’t you read the Constitution?” Yes. [Shouts] “It says natural-born Citizen!” Yes. [Shouts] “Well look at that.” I did read it. It says natural-born Citizen. He’s born of an American mother. [Shouts] “Yeah, well it doesn’t mean that.” Well, what does it mean? “Hey look! Haven’t you read the book by Cuckoo Clock over here, and uh, eh …” Please. Save it for somebody else. As a matter of fact, bother Hannity. Leave me alone. Leave me alone. No, Mr. Call Screener, no calls on this either. I’m just not interested. This bores me, the whole topic. I’m just raising it, to address it, knock it down, done with it, hopefully never to be spoken again on the Mark Levin Show. Let’s take some calls, shall we? Kerry – Houston, Texas. The great KTRH country, home of my buddy Michael Berry. Go!
[end at 25:58 of the podcast recording]
They said citizen at birth.
That IS a “natural born citzen” — a citizen who became so by the virtue of being born.
By your logic, we should also exclude individuals born by cesarean section to two american citizens born in the USA who have never left the USA and who are well beyond and age and residence conditions since the birth was not “natural”.
Cruz is a natural born citizen via:
USC Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I >Section 1401
“Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”
Please consider that with rare exceptions, every word in a legal document means something that is at least non-trivial, or else it would not appear in the document. The Constitution did not say presidents and presidential candidates have to be ‘born citizens’. It says they have to be natural-born Citizens. Do you believe the word “natural” in the term natural-born Citizen is mere surplusage, or ‘fluff’, signifying nothing? I beg you to reconsider.
You’re aware, are you not, that if Obama was born in Alberta, Canada rather than Honolulu, Hawaii, his mother would not have been statutorily capable of transmitting her U.S. citizenship to her son, and he would thus have had no legal status in the U.S. whatever? She was eighteen when she gave birth to Barack, but she would have had to have been at least nineteen according to U.S. law at the time. So by your thoughts on the subject the difference between being a natural-born citizen and not being a citizen at all can be very slender indeed. In truth, however, there must be at one generation of U.S. citizens between you and the nearest non-citizen in your lineage for you to qualify as NBC. In addition, one must be a home-grown ‘talent’, so to speak — born in the United States.
You should look into Natural Law and the Law of Nations. If you do, you will learn that the term natural-born Citizen arises out of those areas of law only, and those areas of law only. It has nothing to do with the biology of how people are born or delivered by doctors. Because it is a term that arises out of Natural Law or the Law of Nations, our elected representatives in Congress are without power to change the definition of the term natural-born Citizen unless we pass a constitutional amendment that addresses the issue squarely.
Pursuant to the actual language of the Constitution, We the People bestowed on Congress has the power of ‘naturalization’. Very early on, Congress began using this power to declare as citizens individuals who were not natural-born Citizens (i.e., born in the country to parents who were its citizens), but whose circumstances of birth gave Congress some kind of ‘foothold’ or ‘tie-in’, meaning that if Congress declared them citizens and had to go up in front of an international law court to defend its claim to such people as citizens, the claim would be ‘colorable’. In other words, they wouldn’t be laughed out of court because the connection between the person and the country claiming them as a citizen was too tenuous (as it might be if the claim was based on the citizenship of a grandparent, for example). This is an international conflict of laws issue which sounds in the Law of Nations.
Congress recognizing such non-NBC people as citizens means, among other things, that unless the applicable statute says otherwise, such individuals did not need to take an citizenship oath like people do when they become U.S. citizens later in life. We had a large land mass to populate, and the first Congress was eager to continue our impressive rate of population growth. Accordingly, individuals we currently recognize as citizens at birth to this day include many people who were born overseas, including many who, like Ted Cruz, were born overseas to at least one foreign parent. Each such person’s citizenship status is determined by whom? Congress. And Congress can do this because it has the Constitutional power of what? Naturalization. And the first law in this area of law that was passed by Congress in 1790, and that many individuals who have your opinion about the definition of NBC like to cite, goes by what title? The Naturalization Act of 1790. And in that act, Congress declared whom as citizens? Individuals born overseas to U.S. citizen parents. So this is just another form of naturalization, as distinct from those of us who, like Virgina Minor, are accurately described as natural-born Citizens. So, leaving out the special case of 14th Amendment citizens for the moment, the true division between types of citizenship in this country is between the large majority of us who were born in the country to parents who were its citizens (NBC’s) and the smaller number of us who do not meet that definition and thus must point to a congressional statute to demonstrate our membership in the U.S. polity (statutory citizens). Remember though, statutory citizens are fully capable of having children who will be natural-born citizens under the right circumstances, so there is always a good reason to solidify or nail-down one’s citizenship status in the U.S.
I’ll put it another way. It is a common misconception that people whose U.S. citizenship doesn’t date to their birth are the only ones who are naturalized. Strictly speaking, individuals whose birth circumstances render their citizenship ambiguous, but who Congress has seen fit to recognize as citizens by passing a statute that covers their specific circumstance, are also properly referred to as ‘naturalized’. True 14th Amendment citizens are a special category–that’s the Wong Kim Ark case, in which Wong Kim Ark was declared a citizen because he was born in the U.S. to two foreign citizens who were permanent U.S. residents.
Though it was included in the language of the original, or unamended (i.e., before the bill of rights was adopted) version of the U.S. Constitution, the term natural-born Citizen is certainly not U.S. specific. The term was also in use by individuals like John Adams in the highest-level of diplomatic and governmental correspondence many times in the mid 1780’s, well before John Jay suggested to convention president George Washington in September 1787 that the term be included in the draft version of the Constitution then being debated in the Philadelphia convention.
Even in the U.S., NBC is more than just a term you use when you are deciding who can and cannot run for or hold the presidency. Virginia Minor learned to her dismay in 1875 she couldn’t claim U.S. citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment, which she had hoped to do in order to analogize herself to freed slaves and thereby get the vote, almost ‘on the sly’. No, instead, the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett informed her in no uncertain terms that: 1) pursuant to the language of the Constitution as originally written, we in the U.S. recognize a type of citizenship status denominated ‘natural-born Citizen’, 2) that the term means ‘individuals born in the country to parents who were its citizens’, 3) her birth circumstances met the definition of natural-born Citizen, and 4) she was therefore a U.S. citizen by operation of the term natural-born Citizen and not by any other act of Congress or constitutional amendment. In other words, she was part of the 70-75% of the total number of U.S. citizens that share NBC status. We’re stuck with the country and the country is stuck with us! Oh, and sorry to say for Ms. Minor, the only natural-born Citizens who could vote at that point were men.
“Mark was shown where he made a mistake in stating in [an end note] that delegates from Vermont belatedly attended the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787. In reality, Vermont was not even a state until 1791. Before that it was a disputed territory between New Hampshire and New York. So Vermonters were not asked to nor were they qualified to attend the Philadelphia convention. He gave his challenger no credit for reading his book carefully and bringing this non-trivial mistake to his attention. He then refused to sign the book on the page where the [end note] appeared and showed distinct signs of impatience and annoyance when he opened the front of the book and began to sign it.”
Well, it’s now almost two years on from the August 18, 2013 booksigning event at Ridgewood’s Bookends bookstore at which a Ridgewood resident: 1) informed Mr. Levin that he had made the above-described end note error in his new book, “The Liberty Amendments,” and 2) asked him the following question when he was signing his copy of the new book: According to what possible definition of the Constitutional term Natural Born Citizen is your friend Ted Cruz eligible to run for or hold the office of President of the United States?
Fast forward to August, 2015, and Mark’s friend Ted Cruz is trailing badly to a GOP frontrunner (Donald Trump) who earlier this year squarely questioned Cruz’s eligibility to run for or hold the office of POTUS based on the indisputable fact that Cruz was born in 1970 in Alberta, Canada. So, the question posed by the Ridgewood, NJ resident to Mark Levin on August 18, 2013, and to which Levin reacted so very poorly by berating and slandering his interlocutor that very day at the Bookends booksigning event, and on August 19, 2013 and August 29, 2013 on his nationally syndicated radio program, remains both relevant and unanswered (that is, at least, if you were to ask his opponents in the race for the Republican Party nomination for President if the United States).
What else is happening in August, 2015? Well, among other things, Mark Levin has written a new book, “Plunder and Deceit”, which was released yesterday, August 4th. Many hardcover copies of this new book are on display and available for sale at Bookends in Ridgewood. Apparently, Levin is just as eager as he was two years ago to secure sufficiently high early sales numbers to land himself on the New York Times bestseller list, because he is once again scheduled to attend a summer booksigning event for his new book at Bookends in Ridgewood, this time on Sunday, August 9, 2015. (It seems the New York Times tracks book sales at a select few (perhaps ten?) bookstores in the Northeast Corridor to determine book placement on its various bestseller lists, and…who knew?…Bookends in Ridgewood is one of those select few bookstores!)
This commenter, curious to know if Mark Levin had “found the time” to look into the above-discussed problem with the erroneous end note in “The Liberty Amendments,” went to Bookends on the release date of “Plunder and Deceit” (yesterday, Tuesday, August 4, 2015) and found a copy of the paperback version of “The Liberty Amendments”, the first edition of which was published perhaps a year ago, well after Mr. Levin had been informed of the error in the original hardcover version.
So after all this, after recklessly abusing the Ridgewood resident who brought the mistake to his attention,: 1) did Levin and his publisher find, upon reflection, that he had in fact made the above-discussed mistake in his end note in the original hardcover version?, and 2) if the answer to question number 1 is ‘yes’, did Levin and his publisher make an appropriate correction to that end note in the subsequently-published paperback version?
As it turns out, the answers to those two questions are as follows: 1) Yes; and 2) No.
The footnote was changed to eliminate the earlier reference to the disputed territory of Vermont. So the Vermont reference was acknowledged as a mistake. This much is commendable. However, the context of the end note in question (i.e., the passage of the main text with which the end note is associated), required Levin and his publisher to insert in place of “Vermont” the name of the actual state (in addition to New Hampshire), delegates from which had not yet completed the trip to Philadelphia to attend the Constitutional Convention. This Levin and his publisher failed to do. Just how much spoonfeeding do they need to get this right?
So the end note in question remains screwed up, almost two years after “The Liberty Amendments” was released. Does anyone in the vast TheRidgewoodBlog readership know what original state Levin is still neglecting to recognize as one of the twelve (Rhode Island objected to the whole idea of the convention and never sent any delegates) that faithfully participated in the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787?
Uuuuummm…THIS IS ME WITH MY HUSBAND AND MARK LEVIN IN THIS PICTURE!!! NONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAY IN THIS “ARTICLE” HAPPENED WHILE WE WERE TAKING THIS PICTURE!! Why the HELL are you using it?!?! He didn’t refuse to sign anything AND signed more than one book!! TAKE MY PICTURE OFF OF YOUR “I’m brilliant” B.S. site, please. Idiot.