Page 569 of 573 FirstFirst ... 69469519559565566567568569570571572573 LastLast
Results 5,681 to 5,690 of 5729
Like Tree97Likes

Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

  1. #5681
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    [ED.: my comment at Newsmax]

    "You can't win a war where you can't name [identify] the enemy." Sounds like Sun Tzu, paraphrased. If accurately and publicly identifying the enemy is so politically incorrect as to make telling the truth unspeakable, you certainly can't wage a war against him.

    Since I am an American and a U.S. Citizen, Mr. Obama is my enemy, because he is the enemy of the state and public enemy #1. He is a fifth-column enemy combatant who has usurped the executive branch by fraud and intrigue.

    He is Constitutionally ineligible to the Office of President, not being a natural-born Citizen, that is, one born in the country of parents who were citizens, which is the interpretation of "natural born Citizen" by the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162 (1875). Because Kenya was a Protectorate of the U.K. and Colonies when Mr. Obama was born, he was born a Brit, he's always a Brit, and he's not legit!


    If he even is a U.S. citizen now, he is a traitor of the highest degree since Benedict Arnold. He has committed Grand Theft America on behalf of her NWO and OIC enemies, an unspeakably heinous and trεαsσnσμs act unparalleled since Satan tricked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden.


    When it is understood that Mr. Obama is:

    • a fraudulent usurper and an anti-American impostor;
    • a Red Diaper Baby who is growing up to be Josef Stalin II, as he transforms the Executive Branch into the KGB;
    • the Enemy-Combatant-in-Chief, an Is1amist terrorist in the White House who has caused more damage to America and created more dire terror in Americans than Osama bin Laden could ever have done from the Hindu Kush;
    • the Butcher of Benghazi, who withheld cross border authority, refusing to allow U.S. military aircraft to cross the Libyan border in defense of sovereign U.S. territory and to rescue four U.S. citizens being martyred there by Is1amist terrorists;
    • the destroying anti-president whose loyalties are to everything opposed to America and to anyone who seeks to destroy the United States;

    then it ceases to make sense to discuss Congress "working together" with such a creature of evil, any more than if the Ayatollah or Kim Jong-un or Satan hisssef were to somehow appear with his feet on the U.S.S. Resolute desk in the Oval Office.


    But politicians, who deal in double-talk and half-truths, are incapable of making such black-and-white distinctions. From such turn away; there is no help to be found in them.

    www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/boehner-obama-immigration-poison/2014/11/06/id/605741/
    Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 11-14-2014 at 04:47 AM.
    kathyet2 likes this.
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  2. #5682
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207


    BY LINDA BENTLEY | NOVEMBER 19, 2014


    Are these merely coincidences in Obama ID fraud cover up?

    Taitz called it ‘the most egregious case of treason and criminal complicity in U.S. history’ and implored Comey to investigate



    WASHINGTON – After filing a complaint with the FBI relating to Social Security Administration Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin’s complicity in the cover up of President Obama’s fraudulent use of a Social Security number (042-68-4425) issued in Connecticut to another person born in 1890, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. said Senate confirmation of Colvin to the post of commissioner was not only stalled for five months but no confirmation hearing has been scheduled.

    Taitz, who has been suing various federal agencies to obtain public records that would prove Obama has committed identity fraud and fraud with respect to his Selective Service registration, noted two high ranking officials, whom she says are involved in the cover up, Attorney General Eric Holder and Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, have resigned.
    . . .

    Taitz doesn’t believe in coincidences and said it appears Colvin chose not to proceed with the confirmation hearing, which would require Colvin to face an investigation and questions about her complicity in the cover up of Obama’s use of fraudulent IDs.

    In a letter dated Nov. 17, 2014 to FBI Director James Comey, Taitz points out she submitted a sworn affidavit from Stephan Jeffrey Coffman, former Chief Investigator of the Special Investigations Unit of the U.S. Coast Guard, to Donahoe and USPS Inspector General David Williams in 2012, revealing Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration is a flagrant forgery that contained a fabricated USPS date stamp.

    Taitz wrote, “During this time, as Mr. Obama is about to rob millions of law abiding Americans of their jobs, it is inconceivable that the FBI will continue this cover up of Mr. Obama’s lack of legitimacy to the U.S. presidency, his Indonesian citizenship and allegiance and his use of a stolen Social Security number and all fabricated IDs.”

    Stating American citizens are entitled to know whether Comey did anything since her complaint was submitted to him on July 6, 2014, Taitz questioned whether a criminal complaint was ever submitted to Holder.

    And, if Holder refused to file a complaint with the court, Taitz wrote, “American citizens are entitled to know it and are entitled to impeach and remove AG Holder from office even before a replacement is confirmed. For this reason, I am also requesting under 5 USC 552 any and all documents responsive and relating to my complaint filed on July 6, 2014 and any and all action taken by you or subordinates in relation to my complaint.”

    Taitz called it “the most egregious case of treason and criminal complicity in U.S. history” and implored Comey to investigate and advise the public whether Holder, Colvin, Donohoe and other high-ranking officials and judges are committing treason by their complicity in the cover up of Obama’s use of a stolen SSN and fabricated IDs.


    Copyright © 2014 Sonoran News

    www.sonorannews.com/archives/2014/141119/news-IDfraud.html

    Commenting on a LubbockOnline.com article,

    "Was Loretta Lynch Picked to Keep Eric Holder Out of Jail?"
    Submitted by Donald R. May on November 10, 2014 - 1:26am,

    Atty. Orly Taitz wrote,

    My findings of Obama's bogus IDs were never debunked, cases are [pending.]
    The truth is that nobody ever debunked me and my findings. There were hundreds of legal actions against Obama and none were heard on the merits yet, 46 different licensed attorneys filed these challenges. None [was] heard on the merits.

    So far everything is covered up, but we are hoping that with the GOP Congress, impeachment proceedings will begin, and judges will be less intimidated to move on with discovery, [because] they know they will not be impeached. Readers can find all the info on ongoing cases against Obama, including racketeering cases, on my site www.TaitzReport.com, front page, right column.

    Currently there is a case in Brownsville, TX, Judge Hanen, seeking to quarantine illegals, follow the case.

    More at the site under

    Evidence on Barack Obama

    Obama File with Exhibits
    Affidavit of Paul Irey
    Obama file Exhibits 1 - 7
    Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 1
    Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 2
    Obama file Exhibits 9-13
    Obama file Exhibits 14-21

    lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2014-11-10/was-loretta-lynch-picked-keep-eric-holder-out-jail

    ______________________

    [Three months after submission of evidence in Taitz v. Colvin
    in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Washington, D.C., U.S. District Court Judge Ellen L. Hollander, presiding, there has been] No decision in that case dealing with Obama’s use of a stolen CT SSN 042-68-4425.
    Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 11-21-2014 at 09:11 PM.
    kathyet2 likes this.
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  3. #5683
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Conflicting accounts of Loretta Fuddy’s death lend credence to assassination hypothesis

    Posted on November 25, 2014 by Dr. Eowyn

    Loretta Fuddy was the woman who, as director of the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, verified the authenticity of Obama’s alleged Hawaii birth certificate, an image of which he released on April 27, 2011 in an effort to silence “birthers”. (Fuddy said she gave Obama’s lawyer, Judith Corley, two photocopies of his original 1961 birth certificate on April 25, 2011. Obama posted a scan of that birth certificate on the White House website on April 27, 2011.)

    Since then, however, numerous documents experts have determined the certificate to be a computer-generated fake.
    Loretta Fuddy

    On December 12, 2013, news came that 65-year-old Fuddy was one of nine passengers in a small commercial Cessna plane that crashed off the coast of Molokai, Hawaii. The Coast Guard found the passengers floating in the water with life jackets on. Fuddy died at the scene, while the other eight passengers, including DOH deputy director Keith Yamamoto, all survived with only minor injuries.
    Keith Yamamoto

    From the beginning, news accounts of Fuddy’s death were inconsistent and contradictory.

    On Dec. 12, 2013, the Los Angeles Times reported that Honolulu Fire Captain Terry Seelig said Fuddy didn’t get out of the plane but had “remained in the fuselage of the plane.” Lt. William Juan with the Maui Police Department also said that Fuddy’s body had been recovered from the wreckage.

    On Dec. 14, 2013, the Associated Press had a very different account. According to a priest, Rev. Patrick Killilea, who consoled Keith Yamamoto after the crash, Yamamoto told him [Killilea] he had helped Fuddy get out of the plane wreck and into her life jacket, then held her hand to help her relax. The priest said, “They were all floating together, and she [Fuddy] let go and there was no response from her.” KITV reported that other eye witnesses also said Fuddy had made it out of the plane just fine and was floating in the water, in her lifejacket, with fellow passengers. Another local news source reported that Coast Guard rescue swimmers said that they had found Fuddy, dead, floating in the water after the plane sank.

    The latest is that there are THREE conflicting accounts of the cause of Fuddy’s death:

    1. cardiac arrhythmia
    2. drowning
    3. severe internal injuries.


    Linda Jordan
    is a self-described “ordinary” American “housewife and mom of three” living in the state of Washington. In an article for Birther Report, Nov. 10, 2014, Jordan details the three conflicting causes of Fuddy’s death.


    1. CARDIAC ARRHYTHMIA


    On January 6, 2014, a press release from the Maui County Police Department stated that Loretta Fuddy had died from cardiac arrhythmia after the small plane she was in had to make an emergency ocean landing due to a failed engine.


    2. DROWNING


    Nine months later in September 2014, Jordan discovered a report by Maui police detective Jamie Winfrey stating that “On December 13, 2013, an autopsy on the body of Loretta Fuddy was performed by medical examiner Dr. Lindsey Harle within the morgue at Molokai General Hospital. The preliminary cause of death is drowning,” pending final autopsy report and toxicology results.

    3. INTERNAL INJURIES


    Then in November 2014, Jordan found a debriefing report by a commander of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) who was part of the rescue effort in the waters of Molokai. The report says Loretta Fuddy died from “severe internal injuries”.
    Here’s the relevant part of the debriefing report, USCG Case Report Case #665884:
    Note that:

    • A/C Commander = the USCG commander, whose name is LT (the name after LT is blacked out)
    • CG1720 = Coast Guard 1720
    • 1720 = a planeidentifier number for the Coast Guard’s Hercules plane

    “ CG1720 arrived O/S at 0220Z …..A/C Commander did not notice if a 121.5 distress signal was radiating. He relayed that the pilot of the downed A/C stated that he lost engine power shortly after take-off as he was making the left turn to head towards Honolulu, after his second attempt to restart the engine failed he prepped passengers and crew for a water landing and had them don PFD’s. He was able to execute a good water landing and disembark passengers prior to the A/C sinking. Mrs. Fuddy was alive but had sustained severe internal injuries during the ditching. She succumbed to those injuries while awaiting rescue resources to arrive.

    To complicate matters, Fuddy’s entire autopsy report, in spite of it being a public record, was blacked out. No medical findings were revealed other than the official cause of death of drowning.


    Jordan points out that Hawaii Revised Statute HRS 841-3 requires a full investigation into accidental and unusual deaths. HRS 841-3 states:

    “As soon as any coroner or deputy coroner has notice of the death of any person within the coroner’s or deputy coroner’s jurisdiction as the result of violence, or as the result of any accident, or by suicide, or suddenly when in apparent health, or when unattended by a physician, or in prison, or in a suspicious or unusual manner, or within twenty-four hours after admission to a hospital or institution,the coroner or deputy coroner shall forthwith inquire into andmake a complete investigation of the cause of the death.

    On October 29, 2014, Maui Police Chief Janice Okubo told Jordan that they have complied with HRS 841-3 by conducting an autopsy on Loretta Fuddy. The problem is “a complete investigation” into a “suspicious or unusual” death involves more than just an autopsy. It includes interviewing witnesses and first responders, under sworn oath, and collecting evidence. The investigation also must be conducted in a manner where said interviews and evidence can be used in a court of law.


    Jordan explains why we should be concerned about the death of Loretta Fuddy:


    I’ll tell you why.
    [In his autobiography] Obama said his father was a citizen of Kenya. For 16 years he told people that he himself was born in Kenya and was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. This was in his biography on his publisher’s website.[In the] biography he wrote about himself [which] he updated…several times during those 16 years…he always left in the part about being born in Kenya.And people believed him. This was before he had proven himself to be a consummate liar so why shouldn’t they have believed him? Those familiar with the Constitution pointed out that if he was born in Kenya and if his father was a citizen of Kenya, he was not eligible to be President of the United States.


    Realizing the error of his ways, Obama immediately began insisting that he was a citizen of this country. He announced his bid for the presidency in February 2007 and on April 21,2007, he changed his biography to say that he was born in Hawaii.


    That’s about the same time people began demanding that he produce his original birth certificate.


    Fours years later, and in re-election mode, Obama announced he was tired of all the “silliness” surrounding his citizenship status and asked Loretta Fuddy for a photocopy of his original birth certificate. What Obama actually posted, however, on the White House website, was an image of a forged Hawaiian birth certificate. A month before Fuddy died she had been named in an affidavit requesting that a Grand Jury launch an investigation into Obama’s forged birth certificate and Fuddy’s role, if any, in the production of it. There were nine souls on board the plane that day on December 11, 2013, and Fuddy was the only fatality. So you can see why those of us who are convinced that Obama’s birth certificate was forged, suspected foul play.


    Of course we could be completely wrong. But the recent discovery that there were three extremely different causes of death listed for Fuddy, first, severe internal injuries, second, drowning and third, cardiac arrhythmia, bolsters that original suspicion.When stories change red flags should go up.


    At the very least I am convinced that someone is trying to hide something about the way she died. Are they hiding incompetence, confusion at the scene of rescue, murder or something else? I don’t know. But I do know this, an official investigation into the demise of Loretta Fuddy is long overdue and I don’t care if it proves me wrong or proves me right. I just want to get this story straight.

    Thank you, Linda Jordan, for your courage and tenacity in pursuit of the truth!

    See also:


    ~Eowyn
    Dr. Eowyn’s post first appeared at Fellowship of the Minds.
    Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

    Share this:


    http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/11/25/conflicting-accounts-loretta-fuddys-death-lend-credence-assassination-hypothesis/
    Last edited by kathyet2; 11-25-2014 at 11:08 AM.

  4. #5684
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    Published by WND: 3/21/14

    Alabama Supreme Court rules "No Opinion" on Obama eligibility


    7-2 majority in Alabama's high court annouces "No Opinion" decision on constitutional question

    Published: 3/21/2014, 2:14 PM

    Bob Unruh



    One of the last remaining court battles over Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility has gone down in flames in a 7-2 decision by the Alabama Supreme Court to render “no opinion.”

    However, the dissenting minority of Justice Tom Parker and Chief Justice Roy Moore concluded the case has serious constitutional significance, warranting an investigation of the qualifications of 2012 presidential candidates by Alabama’s secretary of state.

    Moore wrote in his dissent that the circuit court should have granted the plaintiffs’ request to order the state secretary of state “to implement the natural-born-citizen requirement of the presidential-qualifications clause in future elections.”

    “Although the removal of a president-elect or a president who has taken the oath of office is within the breast of Congress, the determination of the eligibility of the 2012 presidential candidates before the casting of the electoral votes is a state function,” Moore argued.


    He said the case was of “great constitutional significance in regard to the highest office in our land.”


    “Should he who was elected to the presidency be determined to be ineligible, the remedy of impeachment is available through the United States Congress, and the plaintiffs in this case, (Hugh) McInnish and (Virgil) Goode, can pursue this remedy through their representatives in Congress.”


    Parker agreed with Moore’s reasoning, except that he would call for the secretary of state to investigate eligibility issues once she “has received notice that a potential candidate may lack the necessary qualifications to be placed on an Alabama election ballot.”


    Both justices earlier had expressed concern about the issue.


    Parker had filed a special, unpublished concurrence arguing that plaintiff Hugh McInnish’s charge of “forgery” was legitimate cause for concern.


    “Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the ‘short form’ and the ‘long form’ birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public,” he wrote.


    Moore, in an interview with WND in 2010, defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.


    Lakin was stripped of his rank and removed from the military when he demanded to see evidence that Obama was a legitimate commander-in-chief of the military before carrying out deployment orders. He reasoned the orders would be illegal if Obama was not eligible to be president.

    At the time, Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”

    Read all the arguments in the birth certificate controversy, in “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and check out the special reports, banners and bumper stickers on the subject.

    “And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.


    In the 2010 interview with WND
    , Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and considerable evidence that suggests he is not.


    “This is the strangest thing indeed,” he said. “The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law.”


    Read the court’s opinion.


    Moore explained that the Alabama case did not request a judicial determination of Obama’s eligibility but an order that the elections officials in the state assure voters that candidates were eligible under the law.



    He explained state law calls for candidates “who qualify for placement on the ballot in a presidential-preference primary … are ‘entitled to have their names printed on the appropriate ballot for the general election, provided they are otherwise qualified for the office they seek.’”

    “Under Alabama law, therefore, the Secretary of State, as the chief elections official, has a legal duty to determine that presidential-convention nominees who have run in the presidential primary are duly ‘qualified for the office they seek’ before placing their names on the general-election ballot,” he continued.

    The case raised some of the same arguments that appeared earlier in dozens of local, state and federal court cases in Obama’s first term.


    They all argued in some fashion that because of the lack of verifiable facts about Obama’s birthplace, he might be constitutionally ineligible.


    If the parents’ citizenship is a qualifier, Obama by his own admission fails, since he reports his father was a Kenyan student who came to study in the U.S. but never was a U.S. citizen. The senior Obama already was married in Kenya before he met and married Obama Jr.’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.


    This case is brought on behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are asking Alabama’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.


    Get Judge Roy Moore’s classic book about his battle for liberty, “So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom.”


    Attorney Larry Klayman in a brief, argued that the secretary of state, “having the power to certify candidates, can surely de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible.”


    He pointed out that, for example, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen rejected Petra Lindsay on the 2012 California primary ballot because she was 27 years old. The U.S. Constitution requires that the president be at least 35.


    Read more at www.wnd.com/2014/03/breaking-judge-rules-on-obama-eligibility/#K7COfgqk5qSfHDif.99
    Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 11-28-2014 at 10:07 AM.
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  5. #5685
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Marvin Williams in Our Daily Bread, 11/19/14
    When Max Lucado participated in a half-Ironman triathlon, he experienced the negative power of complaint. He said, "After the 1.2-mile swim and the 56-mile bike ride, I didn't have much energy left for the 13.1-mile run. Neither did the fellow jogging next to me. He said, 'This stinks. This race is the dumbest decision I've ever made." I said, 'Goodbye.'" Max knew that if he listened too long, he would start agreeing with him. So he said goodbye and kept running.
    We've heard all the naysayers, discouragers, and never-happeners one should have to hear from in one lifetime. Mahatma Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they
    ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

    If all they have to offer in reply is ignorance and ridicule,
    then WE HAVE NOT YET BEGUN TO FIGHT.

    But first we pray, and last we pray.
    O Lord of hosts, lead us in the fray.
    Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 12-04-2014 at 01:57 AM.
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  6. #5686
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    [ED.: there's something rotten in Wong Kim Ark.]

    The Mr. Binney Funeral Humiliates The Reputation Of The United States Supreme Court.

    Posted on February 7, 2012
    by naturalborncitizen [
    retired attorney Leo Donofrio]

    The lack of historical analysis evident in every judicial opinion which has discussed Obama’s eligibility is staggering. If you compare Judge Malihi’s recent opinion in Georgia, and the Ankeny case from Indiana, to important citizenship decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, it becomes clear what separates the men from the boys. In a word; research.

    U.S. Supreme Court opinions dodge nothing. Every issue is confronted head on. Every argument is taken into consideration, and even if they twist the facts and law to make it condone a blatant abuse of power, such as in the Kelo case, the Court doesn’t run away and hide from the most important obstacles placed in its path.

    Of course, some of these decisions are obviously rigged to issue a pre-determined conclusion. The worst example of this is the racist holding in Scott v. Sandford. Still, the opinion doesn’t run and hide like a sissy from tough issues. But in confronting the racial issue, the Court gave itself and the nation a disease which led directly to civil war. This is what happens when the highest Court in the nation sells its soul. But even when the soul is sold, it’s sold with history and research that confronts the tough issues head on. You’re not left wondering what the Court thought about anything relevant to the case.

    Another controversial opinion concerns U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The majority opinion is 55 single spaced pages long, and the dissent weighs in at 27. The majority opinion was composed by Justice Horace Gray, aka – the Legal Historian of the Supreme Court, and Father of the Historical Method. At first glance, his opinion appears to have tracked down every relevant piece of information and law necessary to a proper resolution of the case.

    Indeed, Gray goes all the way back to English statutes in 1351, continues through Calvin’s Case in 1608, and drives right to the newest state court cases of the day. Nothing was avoided. That depth of research is what made the Supreme Court an icon of justice, and [that depth of research] is severely lacking from the flimsy opinions of lower courts that have weighed in on POTUS eligibility.

    [Exceptionally thorough] research and an intellectual capacity to delicately do ballet thereupon is what makes the Supreme Court’s opinions stand out in contrast to their lower court peers. The SCOTUS gives the appearance of true legal authority. And it’s this patented appearance of legal authority that the stability of the nation is grounded upon.


    When that appearance of authority was humiliated in the Dred Scott case, [anarchy and chaos] literally broke loose upon this country.


    Unfortunately, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, we have the second worst piece ... the Court has ever passed ... And the appearance of true justice has once again been utterly humiliated. Consider that Justice Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur, a man born of an alien father. And in 1898, when Wong was decided, had the public at large, and the Court at large, known that Arthur was born a British subject in the U.S., then there would have been no need to determine the citizenship fate of anyone else born in the country to alien parentage.


    If alien parentage didn’t stop old Chet from being President, why should it stop anyone else from being a citizen?


    Yet, Justice Gray never mentions the citizenship status of the man who appointed him. Gray controlled his own fate by presiding over an opinion, the outcome of which decided the very legitimacy of his appointment to the Supreme Court. And the appearance of impartiality has been destroyed by this sordid history. Whether Justice Gray knew Arthur was born of alien parentage is not as important as the objective appearance.


    This report continues the forensic investigation of whether Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray composed the infamous opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark to subversively cure the citizenship defects – and accompanying POTUS eligibility defects – of the man who appointed him to the bench. President Chester Arthur successfully defrauded the nation as to his parental heritage which established him to have been a British subject at birth, since his father failed to naturalize in the U.S. until 1843, fourteen years after Chester was born.


    Prior reports in this series discussed inexcusable misquotes with regard to Gray’s erroneous reliance upon McCreery v. Somerville, as well as the unexplained abandoning of his very own arguments and associated points of authority from Elk. v. Wilkins.


    And in my Amicus Brief submitted in the recent Georgia Ballot challenges, I offered evidence that other Supreme Court opinions were abused by Justice Gray who cleverly distorted them to mean the exact opposite of what the Court actually held.


    MR. BINNEY’S INFAMOUS “PAPER”.

    Today, we shall strip another foundational building block from the opinion in Wong Kim Ark. I refer to the mysterious “paper” written by Philadelphia attorney, Horace Binney, in 1853. My research has revealed that his paper, The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws, was published in three editions, not two, as was erroneously suggested by Justice Gray. Furthermore, Gray’s suggested chronology of publication is false.

    The most important section of Binney’s paper, as it relates to Justice Gray’s opinion from Wong Kim Ark, was deleted in the third and final revision, while Justice Gray wrongly suggested that the second edition was the final one, thereby appearing to justify his reliance upon it. This is absolutely false.


    The deleted section of the Binney paper was relied upon, and quoted by Gray twice in the Wong Kim Ark opinion. He quotes the passage in the body of the opinion, as well as in the very holding of the case. While Justice Gray acknowledges that the passage did not appear in the peer-reviewed American Law Register (precursor to the University of Pennsylvania Law Review) version, he suggests that the ALR version was the first edition, and that it came before the second edition relied upon by the Court so heavily in Wong Kim Ark. As you will see below, Justice Gray got that very very wrong. My research has now established with absolute certainty that the ALR version was the third and final version of the Binney paper.


    Mr. Binney and his editors at the ALR deleted the infamous passage relied upon by Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark opinion. It did not survive the peer review process and was gutted in the third and final edition of the paper. Furthermore, the necessity for [there] being three versions of the same paper – all published within three months of each other – was caused by two consecutive screw ups by Binney in quoting the U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790. As we shall discuss in detail below, Binney not only misquoted the statute in the first edition, but he compounded the error by applying speculative analysis to the statute as if it contained the misquoted provision.


    Imagine analysis of a statute which does not exist. That’s exactly what happened in the first edition. Then, in the second edition (relied upon so heavily by Justice Gray), Binney appears to have offered the infamous page-long footnote (on pg. 22 of the paper) as a counter-analysis to the first edition’s mistaken conclusions. Unfortunately, Mr. Binney failed to correct the misquote in the second edition as well.


    Both the first and second editions, therefore, contain analysis of a statutory provision which did not exist. This, of course, makes the analysis useless. It’s based upon a fictional statutory provision, so the analysis of that non-existent provision cannot be a legal authority for anything, let alone the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the very case which set our citizenship path for the last 114 years.


    In the third and final edition of the paper, as published by the ALR, Binney’s name was deleted along with that part of the footnote relied upon twice by Justice Gray. Welcome to the wonderful world of Wong Kim Ark.


    We have the sad reality of the highest court in the nation relying upon – in the most important citizenship decision in our national history – a legal authority which was deleted by the concerned author and his esteemed editors. When we add this new evidence to all of the other anomalies in the Wong Kim Ark opinion, as framed by the strange history of Chester Arthur’s citizenship status, the stench becomes unbearable. And the current United States Supreme Court should really clean it up.


    ACKNOWLEDGED OBSCURITY OF THE BINNEY PAPER.
    Binney was no stranger to controversy. His paper on Habeas Corpus advocated for the Government’s right to strip this most precious jewel of liberty from the populace when it saw fit. That paper was criticized heavily by his peers (although today’s federal mafia would salivate over it).

    But the paper which Justice Gray relies upon, “The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws“, self-published by Binney in Philadelphia (1853), did start upon a valid point. It reiterated the sentiment from prior authorities, which explained that there was no statute in place to naturalize the children born abroad of U.S. citizens. Binney’s paper sought to influence a correction of the law. And in 1855, the law was corrected.


    JUSTICE GRAY’S EXALTED RESEARCH.

    Justice Gray was a titan of the historical method, famously known as the pre-eminent historian of the Supreme Court, to which great tales have been told concerning his legendary research skills. And his knowledge of the Binney paper was apparently far advanced from that of the attorneys litigating WKA. Ark’s attorneys were not able, in 1898 – almost fifty years after Binney published the paper – to establish with any certainty that Binney had written the paper, and it was Justice Gray who was finally able to do it for them in his opinion from WKA.

    There is a telling anecdote about the obscurity of Binney’s paper, memorialized by Ark’s attorney, J. Hubley Ashton, Esq., in Great American Lawyers, Volume 8:


    “There was cited in the argument for the appellee in that case a paper of remarkable ability on the ‘Alienigenae of the United States’, published many years ago in the American Law Register, which had always and universally been attributed by lawyers and judges to Horace Binney, although his name was not appended to the article. As one of the counsel for the appellee, I made considerable effort to ascertain before the argument whether the great lawyer of Philadelphia had ever formally acknowledged this paper as his own, but the search for information on the subject was unavailing. My surprise was almost humiliating, I remember when I saw in the opinion of the court delivered by Mr Justice Gray, a passage with a note, from what was described by him as tha second edititon of this paper, ‘printed in pamphlet form at Philadelphia with a preface bearing Mr Binney’s signature and the date of December 1st 1853′, accompanied by the following observation of the learned judge: ‘This paper without Mr Binney’s name, and with the note in a less complete form, and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February 1854.’ I was naturally curious to know where and how Mr Justice Gray had found this rare pamphlet, no copy of which appeared to be in any department of the Library of Congress. He told me that although he had no doubt from internal evidence and otherwise that the paper referred to was the authentic work of Mr Binney, he was indisposed to cite it as such in the opinion of the Supreme Court upon mere tradition or general belief on the subject, and that as a result of a search among some old pamphlets purchased by him many years ago, and stored away in his private library, he found the pamphlet described in his opinion, which established, of course, the authorship of the learned paper contained in it.”
    Id. pg. 169-170. (Emphasis added.)


    So, 55 years after Binney’s paper was first released, the Library of Congress didn’t even have the original editions of the paper. The only person who did have them, according to this anecdote, was Justice Gray. He apparently had the second edition tucked away in his private library. But what about the first edition? If he was in possession of that, then his entire opinion in Wong Kim Ark is proved to be a fraud. If he knew of the true first edition, his suggestion that the ALR version was the first edition would be outright fraud. Keep this in mind as we move along to examine the text of each edition.

    ...

    Besides Justice Gray’s infamous misleading quote from Binney appearing on pg. 666 of the Wong Kim Ark opinion, spookier anomalies have popped up throughout my research of the natural-born citizen issue. Of course, JustiaGate takes the prize and sets the standard for this kind of freaky malevolence. But just now it happened again with regard to the passage just quoted from the Great American Lawyers text. I downloaded the book from Google Books about eight weeks ago. And it’s to that downloaded copy that I have provided a link above. The text is in the public domain and therefore, as of eight weeks ago, the entire book was available as a preview, and as a download from this link.


    Well, it’s a good thing I downloaded it then, because as of today, Google has Justiafied the text, so that pg. 170 has been clipped from both the preview, and the downloadable version. The part about Justice Gray having the Binney paper in his private library has been scrubbed by Google as of today. Download the Google copy and compare it to the copy available here at my blog. They do not match. And this development has taken place recently, since I downloaded the full copy from Google Books just a few weeks ago. What a freak show, America. Raise the lights, dim the Twilight Zone theme, and let’s get down to business.


    THE EVIDENCE
    .

    Binney, after having published the first edition of the paper must have become acutely aware of his screw up, and quickly published a second edition which added an infamous footnote which sought to alleviate the erroneous analysis based upon the incorrect statutory quotation. Binney, however, failed to inform the reader that the note was required due to the misquote. The second edition, therefore, contains a footnote which changes the analysis of the statute. Unfortunately, the second edition also failed to correct the misquote.

    This must have doubled the embarrassment of Binney, who was a very upright character. I have been to the Philadelphia Historical Society to read his personal papers, and handwritten memoirs, which illustrate he was a very decent man. I do not wish to sully his reputation, but the reputation of the paper in question, as relied upon by Gray, deserves stern negative critique. And Binney’s failure to allow his name to appear on the ALR version justifies the criticism.


    I never understood why an obscure paper, rather than prior decisions of the Supreme Court, should have provided the backbone for Gray’s opinion. Up until Wong Kim Ark, there were multiple U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which held that minor children follow the political status (aka citizenship status) of their parents (see my Amicus Brief at 31-39), and that birth on the soil did not necessarily confer citizenship, unless the parents were themselves citizens. Two decisions which held America to this principle were, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, and Shanks v. Dupont, to which Justice Gray failed to acknowledge the majority holdings, as they directly conflicted with his opinion in WKA.


    But now it has become clear that even Binney’s obscure paper should provide no support at all for Justice Gray’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark.


    The footnote quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark does not appear in the first edition of Mr. Binney’s paper. You may examine the first edition at this link to Harvard’s online collection. Additonally, I have extracted the pamphlet from a collection of Binney’s writings made available by Widener University. The full text of that document is here. And I have extracted the first edition of Binney’s paper, and uploaded it here. Go to pg. 22, that is where the statute is misquoted, as follows:


    “[T]hat the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens — with a proviso, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons who had never been resident in the United States. 2 US Laws 83.”


    The proviso from the actual statute, however, did not require that the persons born overseas be resident in the U.S. It required that the fathers of such persons must have resided in the country:


    Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…”


    Binney then went on to analyze the statute as if the misquote was genuine:


    “[T]he proviso did not apply to citizens naturalized under that Act, who must have been resident within the United States at the time of their naturalization, but only to such native citizens, or citizens naturalized by British law, as had left the country before or during the Revolution and had never returned.”


    This analysis is awkward, and does not appear to make any sense with regard to British law. Binney recognized that, and quickly published a second edition, which contains the footnote cited by Justice Gray. I have uploaded the second edition here. The footnote takes up most of pg. 20, continuing on pg.21. Justice Gray quoted from it as follows:


    Mr. Binney in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said: ‘The common- law principle of allegiance was the law of all the states at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the constitution; and by that principle the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned [namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to], such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the states before the constitution, or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the congress of the United States.’ Page 20. ‘The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ Page 22, note. This paper, without Mr. Binney’s name, and with the note in a less complete form, and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Am. Law Reg. 193, 203, 204.
    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665-666 (1898 ). (Emphasis added.)

    The second edition, however, while supplying the note, also contains the exact same statutory misquote as the first edition. Additionally, Justice Gray got his facts very wrong in the bold print part quoted above. The note from the peer-reviewed ALR edition is the third and final edition, and the note, therefore, is in its complete form in that edition, whereas the second edition contains a longer note, but that note is based upon the statutory misquote, and is, therefore, not the final note.


    Justice Gray’s suggestion that the ALR was the first edition is proved false by the fact that the ALR edition finally gets the statute right, and the note attached to the ALR edition makes sense when read in light of the correct statute. I have uploaded the ALR version here. Go to pg. 12, and you will see that the statute now reflects the true proviso, which requires the fathers to have been resident. The note in the ALR version appears on pg. 13, and you can see that the following passage was stripped from the final edition:


    “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”


    Justice Gray relied on this deleted, and discredited passage, not only on pgs. 665-666 of the Wong Kim Ark opinion, but he also relied on it in the holding, on pg. 693.


    The first edition was published in December, 1853. The second edition appears to also have been published in December, 1853, as was noted by Justice Gray. The ALR edition was published in Feb., 1854, and is the only edition to have correctly quoted the statute.


    That Binney screwed it up twice, must have been the reason his name didn’t appear on the ALR edition. The prior versions contain analysis based upon a statutory provision which did not exist. That analysis drove Binney to quickly publish a second edition, but in doing so he just made it worse.


    Justice Gray relied upon this paper multiple times in the Wong Kim Ark opinion, specifically citing the discredited quotes twice. The errors which caused Binney’s first two papers to require these misguided quotations to be removed from the final edition were caught in peer review, and stripped from the third edition. The ALR version is certainly the third and final edition, not the first as was suggested by Gray.


    This revelation leaves us with a very rotten opinion from Wong Kim Ark that has determined our national citizenship policy, which, as can be seen from the lack of research applied to it by the lower courts reviewing Obama’s eligibility (none of which mentioned any of the clear errors made by Justice Gray, and pointed out here at this blog), continues to have broad ranging implications that directly touch national security with regard to who is eligible to be commander in chief.


    The analysis I have provided in this report, when added to the rest of the sad story concerning Justice Gray’s many errors of law and fact as shadowed by the Chester Arthur controversy, leaves the nation’s highest court looking either corrupt, or stupid. If Justice Gray was aware of the true chronology of the three versions of Binney’s paper, he is guilty of directly, and purposely, defrauding the nation. If he was guilty of negligence, that’s almost just as bad. The U.S. Supreme Court is not supposed to look this bad.


    The Wong Kim Ark opinion looks very bad, America.


    Leo Donofrio, Esq.


    naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/the-mr-binney-funeral-humiliates-the-reputation-of-the-united-states-supreme-court/
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  7. #5687
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    A Rat Called Tandem.

    Re: the 2012 Obama ballot eligibility hearing in Judge Malihi's Georgia State Administrative Court.

    Posted on February 4, 2012 by naturalborncitizen (Leo Donofrio)

    [UPDATED: 2:12 PMCindy Simpson’s top headline article at American Thinker is also a must read. Excellent analysis as usual.]

    What happened in Georgia is what we refer to in poker as, “playing to a script”. It’s like something out of a Frank Capra movie. The citizens head to court to fix a Constitutional wrong, and the State court appears to be tough on the feds, standing up to them bravely flexing their muscles in the name of their citizens. Nice script. But it’s so very transparent.

    Everyone needs to read Mario Apuzzo’s in-depth exposure of the blatant flaws in Judge Malihi’s holding, wherein you will experience a brilliant researcher exposing a truly defective legal opinion.


    I only have a little bit to add. My remarks will be brief, and focused upon Judge Malihi’s sad failure to address the issue of statutory construction, which I explained thoroughly in my last report, The Dirty “little” Secret of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

    Malihi’s opinion directly contradicts his own recent opinion denying Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein Malihi relied exclusively on statutory construction. However, yesterday, Malihi held that the 14th Amendment had to be read “in tandem” with Article 2, Section 1.


    But doing so would render the natural-born citizen clause to be inoperative, in that 14th Amendment citizenship, and nothing more, would be the requirement to be President. This would mean that the natural-born citizen clause is rendered superfluous. Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):


    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

    And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:


    “Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).

    The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

    There is no “clearly expressed intention” to deem 14th Amendment citizens “natural born”. Those words were intentionally left out of the 14th Amendment. And Judge Malihi has simply overruled the U.S. Supreme Court by suggesting that the general citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment governs the specific requirement to be President in Article 2, Section 1.


    Both clauses are not given separate effect by Malihi. His opinion holds that the 14th has the exact same effect as the natural-born citizen clause, while the 14th Amendment does not include the words “natural born Citizen”. Persons claiming citizenship under the 14th Amendment are deemed to be “citizens”. Malihi has added the words “natural born” into the Amendment. This is absolutely forbidden, according to Malihi’s own opinion in the Motion to dismiss, wherein he held:


    “In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.’ ” (Emphasis added.)

    Yeah, dude. Whatevah. Such lack of consistency, just weeks apart, from the same jurist… simply reeks. Now he’s putting words into the 14th Amendment, when just two weeks ago he said that was forbidden.


    “EVER GET THE FEELING YOU’VE BEEN CHEATED?”


    naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-rat-called-tandem/
    kathyet2 likes this.
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  8. #5688
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    The Dirty “little” Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.

    Posted on January 27, 2012 by naturalborncitizen (Leo Donofrio)

    I have emphasized the word “little” because the truth of the law on this issue is very simple, folks. So simple that the mystery is deciphered by application of one of the most clear, concise and undeniable rules of law; the code of statutory construction governs, and therefore, “natural born Citizen” must require something more than being born in the United States.

    Let me put it to you in appropriately simple language:

    Clause A = “Only a natural born Citizen may be President.”

    Clause B = “Anyone born in the United States is a Citizen.”

    (While these two clauses reflect Article 2, Section 1, and the 14th Amendment, I shall refer to them as “Clause A” and “Clause B” for now.)

    The code of statutory construction is learned by every student in law school, and every practicing attorney has confronted it. Every judge is required to apply the rule equally to all statutes, and the Constitution. There is no wiggle room at all. The rule states that when a court examines two clauses, unless Congress has made it clear that one clause repeals the other, the court must observe a separate legal effect for each. More specifically, regardless of the chronology of enactment, the general clause can never govern the specific.

    Clause B is a general rule of citizenship, which states that all persons born in the country are members of the nation.

    Clause A is a specific clause that says only those members of the nation who are “natural born” may be President.


    According to the rule of statutory construction, the court must determine that Clause A requires something more than Clause B.


    It’s truly that simple. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It’s not controversial. This is not rocket science. Every single attorney reading this right now knows, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that I have accurately explained the rule of statutory construction to you. Any attorney who denies this rule, is lying. The rule cannot be denied. And its simplicity cannot be ignored.


    Now let’s see what the United States Supreme Court has to say about the rule:

    “Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87-89 (1902).

    The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

    This is what I mean by no wiggle room – “The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments…” Any court construing Clause A is not at liberty to assume that Congress intended to put the words “natural born” into Clause B. The general does not govern the specific, and the rule requires the court to “give effect to both if possible”.

    Is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B?


    Yes. The Constitution tells us that any Citizen can be a Senator, or Representative, but that to be President one must be a “natural born Citizen”. The Constitution specifically assigns different civic statuses to “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens”. Therefore, not only is it possible to give separate effect to both Clause A and Clause B, it is absolutely required by law, and no court has the ability to circumvent the rule.


    Had the original framers intended for any “born Citizen” to be eligible to the office of President, they would not have included the word “natural” in the clause. Additionally, had the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to declare that every person born in the country was a “natural born Citizen”, then the 14th Amendment would contain clear and manifest language to that effect. But it doesn’t. Therefore, each clause must be given separate force and effect.


    Deputy Chief Judge Malihi explained the rule of statutory construction in his denial of candidate Obama’s Motion to Dismiss, wherein his opinion of the Court stated:

    “Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.’ Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008 ). ‘Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.’ Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
    Because there is no other ‘natural and reasonable construction’ of the statutory language, this Court is ‘not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).” Order On Motion To Dismiss, Deputy Chief Judge Malihi, Jan. 3, 2012, pg. 3. (Emphasis added.).

    Therefore, the term “natural born” must be considered as requiring something more than simple birth in the country. And Judge Malihi states, quite clearly, in his ruling above, that the Court “is not authorized to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” The rule is the same for election statutes in Georgia as it is for the Constitution of the United States.

    The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
    Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

    If the 14th Amendment was held to declare that all persons born in the country, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, were natural-born citizens, then the “natural born Citizen” clause would be rendered inoperative. It would be superfluous. And its specific provision would, therefore, be governed by the general provision of the 14th Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is inadmissible to even make that argument.

    Any genuine construction of the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents.


    Leo Donofrio, Esq.


    [For a more detailed analysis of this issue, please see my Amicus Brief entered in the Georgia POTUS eligibility cases.]


    naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-natural-born-citizen-clause-revealed/
    Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 12-17-2014 at 06:23 AM.
    kathyet2 likes this.
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  9. #5689
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    The Current INS Officially Recognizes A Delineation Between Natural-Born and Native-Born.

    Posted on January 25, 2012 by naturalborncitizen (retired atty. Leo Donofrio)

    I was just made privy to a very important piece of research I had not previously been aware of. It comes by way of a comment forwarded to me by the author of the h2ooflife blog:

    “I had presumed that the idiom “natural born citizen” appeared nowhere in U.S. Law other than A2S1C5, but I found it in administrative law and it is contrasted with native and naturalized citizenship. I’ve never seen any mention of this fact before and wonder how many are aware of it in the ineligibility camp. Here’s the quotes:

    www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

    He then quoted two provisions from the link provided, but there’s actually three at the official INS “.gov” site which establish official recognition by the federal government that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”

    Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3)
    provides:

    “The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…”
    (Emphasis added.)

    Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:

    “(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

    The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.)

    And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:

    “The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.”
    (Emphasis added.)

    www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html


    Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status.

    The INS includes the following explanation of Interpretations:

    “Interpretations were created to supplement and clarify the provisions of the statute and regulations as interpreted by the courts. These materials usually are not included in the regulations because they deal generally with procedural matters and do not deal directly with application and benefit requirements. They are still a useful tool to help you understand how the DHS Bureaus performs their different immigration services and enforcement functions. Users of the Operation Instructions and Interpretations should always consult the relevant regulations and manuals in conjunction with these materials. As the DHS Bureaus have grown, the trend has been towards inclusion of more materials in the regulations and field manuals, and the Operations Instructions and Interpretations have been updated less frequently.”

    I am rather rocked by this find, having never seen it before, and it certainly comes to the attention of the nation at a critical moment, one day before the Georgia POTUS eligibility hearings. I do have a policy of only printing comments from attorneys, but I did say in the comment rules that I would be happy to read messages from anyone. Since this research is new to me, and directly relevant to a proper analysis of the natural-born citizen clause, I have made an exception in posting this comment.

    However, I must stress that I do not agree with some things at the h2ooflife blog. While I haven’t had the time to examine everything there, I must point out the following, and zealously dispute it:

    “The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are (“natural born” citizens” and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. They were not granted citizenship via that US statute, rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. They were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.”

    This is not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization. Congress has no power to define “natural born Citizen”, which has nothing to do with naturalization. Furthermore, if Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they don’t have to enact legislation to do it.

    But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.. citizens born abroad. And the words “natural born” were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again.

    In Rogers. v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that persons born abroad are not covered by the 14th Amendment, and therefore, their citizenship can be stripped from them by Congress, whereas Congress cannot strip citizenship from a 14th Amendment citizen, whether born or naturalized here:

    “Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was “declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,” so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence:

    “But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”

    Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action…


    Further, it is conceded here both that Congress may withhold citizenship from persons like plaintiff Bellei and may prescribe a period of residence in the United States as a condition precedent without constitutional question.

    Thus we have the presence of congressional power in this area, its exercise, and the Court’s specific recognition of that power and of its having been properly withheld or properly used in particular situations.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830-831. (Emphasis added.)

    National law has always required persons born abroad to be naturalized, whether born of citizen parents or not. Furthermore, those born abroad to citizen parents are subject to conditions precedent which Congress may impose upon them in order for them to remain U.S. citizens, whereas Congress has no such power over natural-born citizens, native-born citizens, or citizens naturalized in the U.S.

    Again, not only are children of citizens born abroad not natural-born, the Supreme Court has held that their citizenship is subject to being stripped by Congress, since the Constitution does not directly provide for their citizenship, as it does for those born or naturalized in the United States.

    I do not appreciate the author’s argument on this point. It is definitely wrong.

    Regardless, the research provided as to the INS Interpretations is superb and greatly appreciated. Well done, sir.

    Adding these official Interpretations of the INS, published at the official “.gov” site, to the Supreme Court’s opinion from Minor v. Happersett, the true Constitutional definition of a natural-born citizen, as one born in the country to citizen parents, is further reinforced.

    Like the Obama administration’s prior scrubbing of the Foreign Affairs Manual, on August 21, 2009, the INS web site appears due for a cut and die at the salon.

    Leo Donofrio, Esq.


    naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/
    kathyet2 likes this.
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

  10. #5690
    Senior Member MinutemanCDC_SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
    Posts
    3,207
    An Investigation by the House, or
    Impeachment in the Senate?

    An ALIPAC post by MinutemanCDC_SC, from July 1, 2011.

    During his usurpation of the Presidency, Mr. Obama's primary impeachable offense is sedition, i.e., overthrowing the Constitution of the United States, Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5, and replacing our Constitutional republic and its democratically elected representatives with a totalitarian, Socialist oligarchy or dictatorship, thereby overthrowing the legitimate Constitutional government and perpetrating a coup d'etat.

    The proper response NOW to his crimes committed BEFORE taking office is:

    • a Quo Warranto (By What Warrant) lawsuit for election fraud and ineligibly holding office, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia - a suit which has been refused by Chief Judge Royce Lamberth;

    • a U.S. House investigation into Mr. Obama's ineligibility for the Office of President, not being a "natural born Citizen," that is, a citizen
      born in the country of parents who were citizens (at the time of his birth) - a
      course of redress which has been rejected by Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and blocked by Rep. John Boehner, the Speaker of the House; or

    • a military ouster of the fraudulent impostor unlawfully occupying the post of Commander-in-Chief - a recourse which has been ignored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in their abandoning of Terry Lakin [ex-LTC-USA and former M.D.] to enemies of the Constitution who adhere to Mr. Obama.

    Therefore, as then-Pres. John F. Kennedy said in 1962, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

    A U.S. House investigation is more likely to compel Mr. Obama's resignation than a trial of impeachment is to lead to a conviction and his removal from office.

    On the other hand, a trial of impeachment which does not attain a two-thirds majority in the Democrat-controlled Senate will preclude a House investigation thereafter. Also, impeachment is not made for a criminal breaking into an office or an enemy combatant seizing the authority of the Presidency. Impeachment would cede to the fraudulent impostor the high ground of publicly representing himself as a legitimate President.

    However, with ALIPAC choosing to call for impeachment rather than a House investigation, I will support both.


    www.alipac.us/f8/alipac-calls-impeachment-president-barack-obama-230784-post1194307/#post1194307
    One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.

    Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
    tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.

    The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •