Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Is it NOT the responsibility of the CA Bar to PROVE that Mrs. Taitz law suits were "Frivolous"?
If that is the case, they would have to prove our case FOR US!

Originally Posted by PatriotofPast

Is it NOT the responsibility of the CA Bar to PROVE that Mrs. Taitz law suits were "Frivolous"?
If that is the case, they would have to prove our case FOR US!

Very interesting observation. That could well be true if the burden of proof is on the BAR Association and not on the Accused.

We couldn't be so lucky, could we?

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by PatriotofPast

Is it NOT the responsibility of the CA Bar to PROVE that Mrs. Taitz law suits were "Frivolous"?
If that is the case, they would have to prove our case FOR US!

Very interesting observation. That could well be true if the burden of proof is on the BAR Association and not on the Accused.

We couldn't be so lucky, could we?

The same holds true for Judge Land's $20,000 sanction against Dr. Taitz. In her Quo Warranto against Mr. Obama, she maintains, "Taitz was injured when she was subjected to retaliation and $20,000 sanctions upon bringing the above information to court in the [U.S. District Court for the] Middle district of GA, Judge D. Land [presiding, in] Rhodes v MacDonald."

The very action which was supposed to hurt her may be the specifically personal injury which gives her unquestionable standing to bring suit.

Originally Posted by Immigrantgrl

What exactly does "natural-born" mean?
Persons born citizens of the United States are considered natural-born. Therefore, a child born of illegal immigrants or born on U.S. soil yet lived his or her life out of the nation could still be President. A naturalized citizen could not

In conclusion...IF he was born in Kenya like some people want to believe it doesnt really matter because his mother is a U.S Citizen therefore Obama is a natural born citizen because he was a citizen when he was born and not Naturalized. Any U.S citizen that has a kid abroad just has to go to their embassy and register their kid and its an automatic citizen, blue passport and all

They are not natural born citizens under the US Constitution. They only become US citizens when their feet hit the soil upon their entry to the US using the passport. My husband was born to 2 US citizens overseas when they were employed there. He is not a natural born citizen. His 2 siblings who were born during furlough to the states are natural born citizens. When the natural born citizen clause was written into the US constitution, a natural born citizen was born on US soil to 2 US citizens. Even if 1 of your parents was a US citizen and the other not, you had to become naturalized when you were 18 and pledge allegiance to the US before you became a US citizen.

The 14th Amendment didn't change or amend the conditions of a natural born citizen in that part of our Constitution, nor has any court ruling, or any US law or regulation written since.

I think we should disband the "state bar" in its entirety. I have no problem with lawyers being required to pass a state examination to become licensed to practice law, but I abhor these professional organizations filled with the most corrupt people in our country having the audacity or power to judge anyone else in their "club".

Juries should judge lawyers in courts of law for illegal behavior like everybody else. Period.

Originally Posted by Judy

[Children born abroad to U.S. citizens] are not natural born citizens under the US Constitution. They only become US citizens when their feet hit the soil upon their entry to the US using the passport.

Not exactly, but very close.

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

U.S. immigration law 8 USC 1401[/url]]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[list:38gont5v](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.[/list:u:38gont5v] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... sler-case/

Judge Gonzalez Now Guilty Of Intentional Fraud In Chrysler Case.
[size=117]


The entire case against the rejected Chrysler dealers revolved on one simple answer given by Fiat Executive, Alfredo Altavilla, when he was cross-examined by Dealer Counsel during the hearing to decide the fate of Chrysler. Every other witness testified that neither the US Government nor Fiat requested that Old Chrysler reject the 789 Dealer franchise contracts.

Without a request by the lender (the US Government) or the purchaser (Fiat), there was no sound business judgment in Old Chrysler killing off 789 franchises. This is because when a contract is rejected in bankruptcy, Section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code kicks in and gives those rejected dealers an unsecured creditor claim against the estate. In this case, it was undisputed that the claim would potentially reach one billion dollars.

Old Chrysler had a fiduciary duty to its other creditors not to burden the estate with this mammoth claim. However, had a key party sought rejection of those franchise agreements as a condition precedent to the deal closing then the Court might have been justified to approve the rejections. But no party ever testified that the dealer restructuring was a necessary condition precedent to the sale closing.

The New Chrysler management were free to trim the dealership network once they took over. After they owned the company, they could deal with the dealers as they liked and as would have been governed by State franchise laws which protected the dealers. And all of the evidence shows that Fiat was happy to take on the entire dealership network in the sale. The decision to kill off 789 dealerships was entirely the brain collapse of Old Chrysler’s management. Therefore, the issue to be decided by the Court was whether this decision was made in sound business judgment.

The entire dealer rejection issue then turned on whether the rejections were a condition precedent to the sale closing. If it was not a material issue to Fiat, and if Fiat’s executive testified that they were happy to trim the dealership network after the sale closed, then Old Chrysler should not have been allowed to reject the dealer contracts. The Bankruptcy Court – under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code – must approve the rejections for them to become effective.

Here is the exact testimony by Alfredo Altavilla of Fiat which the case turned on:

• Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?
  
  A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.

(See May 27, 2009 Hearing Transcript at 352.)

It’s a very straightforward answer. Altavilla clearly testified that whether the dealer restructuring took place after the sale closed made no material difference to Fiat. Clearly, this man and his foreign company were not going to walk away from a deal where the American people paid the ENTIRE 20 plus billion dollar purchase costs just to hand it over to Fiat for free. Zippo nada zilch was paid by Fiat who were therefore in no position to demand 40,000 American jobs be lost and 789 dealerships be gutted. Fiat didn’t make that insane demand and the testimony above clearly shows this to be true.

But Judge Gonzalez decided he was going to usher in a new era of judicial ventriloquism by taking on a new role for his soiled robe. Gonzalez understood that the testimony needed for him to approve the rejection of 789 dealers (and loss of some 40,000 jobs) was nowhere to be found in the record of the case. So Judge Gonzalez – through the use of creative footnoting – made up his own testimony and stuffed it into the mouth of Altavilla Ã* la Edgar Bergen and his dummy Charlie McCarthy. Seriously folks – the metaphor is so very appropriate.

Please compare and contrast Alatvilla’s testimony with Judge Gonzalez at Footnote 21 of the Gonzalez Rejection Opinion:

ALTAVILLA’S TESTIMONY

• Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?
  
  A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.

THE JUDGE GONZALEZ OPINION AT FOOTNOTE 21
[list][i][b]21 …Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.â€

[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]

Originally Posted by Judy

[Children born abroad to U.S. citizens] are not natural born citizens under the US Constitution. They only become US citizens when their feet hit the soil upon their entry to the US using the passport.

Not exactly, but very close.

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html]U.S. immigration law 8 USC 1401[/url]":3off4d71][size=7]The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:[list](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;

[b](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;[/b]

(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;

[b](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:[/b] 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[list:3off4d71](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[/list]
[b](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.[/b][/list:u:3off4d71] [url="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html[/url] [/size]

[/quote:3off4d71]

Yes, but if you look deeper into the rules of how it works, if you never come home, you never become a citizen. If you're born overseas, the citizenship activates when you enter the US.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, but if you look deeper into the rules of how it works, if you never come home, you never become a citizen. If you're born overseas, the citizenship activates when you enter the US.

Judy, we will have to agree to disagree; I don't see that in the U.S. immigration laws, 8 USC ¶12. Such disenfranchisement would render without citizenship a child of U.S. citizen parents born overseas in a country which recognizes only ius sanguinis (the law of blood) and not ius soli (the law of the soil).

It doesn't affect the matter at hand. If Barack Obama was born in Kenya, he did return to U.S. soil.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by Judy

Yes, but if you look deeper into the rules of how it works, if you never come home, you never become a citizen. If you're born overseas, the citizenship activates when you enter the US.

Judy, we will have to agree to disagree; I don't see that in the U.S. immigration laws, 8 USC ¶12. Such disenfranchisement would render without citizenship a child of U.S. citizen parents born overseas in a country which recognizes only ius sanguinis (the law of blood) and not ius soli (the law of the soil).

It doesn't affect the matter at hand. If Barack Obama was born in Kenya, he did return to U.S. soil.

True, it doesn't have anything to do with Obama. It's a procedural thing I discovered doing some research awhile back. I took a few minutes to try to find the source of it, but haven't so far. It had to do with securing the full rights of citizenship. If I can find it again, I'll post it for you.