The Dual Cititzen POTUS Disqualification Issue Stands Alone.

DOSdual

Today I received the following question from a reader:

QUESTION FROM READER:

“Yesterday (Aug. 28) Orly Taitz filed suit in federal court in Texas on behalf of one Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D., in which Orly seems to have used wording that would be acceptable to Leo Donofrio:

“(24)        However, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as the president has to spend only one minute of his time to sign a consent form for release of his vital records, showing that he is a Natural Born Citizen, meaning one born in the country to two US citizen parents.”

Come on, Leo, tell us Orly got it right this time.”

I don’t understand the tactical use of the above referenced count.  The dual citizen POTUS disqualification issue stands alone and should be  set forth to stand or fall on its own merit separate from the birth certificate conspiracy theory.  (Of course, conspiracies exist.  But until facts are proved, they remain theories.)

Here is a rough draft of how I would accomplish the goal of setting forth the genuine legal question to stand or fall on its own merit in a complaint:

1.  Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his  “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom.  Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.

2.  Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.

3.  This Honorable Court may take Judicial Notice of the following admissions published by Barack Hussein Obama Jr. [insert all published admissions in books, newspapers, official web sites etc.]  For example:

- Admission #1.  The following statement was published by Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

4. This Honorable Court may also take Judicial Notice of the US State Department’s current policy under the Obama administration with regard to dual citizenship:

“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.  However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.”  (Emphasis added.)

That’s how you separate the issue and set it forth to stand or fall on its own merit.

Obama can’t provide any document which makes him eligible under the legal theory that a person such as him –  a dual citizen owing allegiance to the very monarchy our founding fathers shed their blood to rid themselves of – was not at birth, and therefore can never be – a natural born citizen of the US.

His birth certificate won’t establish eligibility under that legal theory so why lump this issue in with the Birth Certificate issue?  Make the BC issue separate and set your allegations out thereto in separate numbered counts.

Why make it seem as if it’s possible for Obama to produce a document which makes him eligible?

Furthermore, if one wishes to allege that his father is not Barack Sr. (a theory I believe is ridiculous), then one ought to make that allegation in a separate count as well… by pleading in the alternative.  And then follow in suit as to the rest of the complaint – separate numbered counts as to each other claim, BC or otherwise.

If you fail to point out admissions against interest by the defendant, than you’re not really giving your client the best chance of victory.

Furthermore, if any attorneys reading this are influenced to incorporate the tactical approach written above to amend existing complaints or to issue forthcoming complaints, I have no objection whatsoever and require no recognition thereto.

I do not offer the above to condemn the efforts of any attorney nor do I offer the above as legal counsel.  I’m just hypothetically blogging on the issue.

About these ads

102 Responses to “The Dual Cititzen POTUS Disqualification Issue Stands Alone.”

  1. The NBC may never be found out if the president shuts down the internet as proposed in the new law before the regulators:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

    some other intesting US History:

    http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/US-Legal-History.htm

    Leo, thank you

  2. Leo,

    I have a very difficult time getting Obama to any US citizenship other than naturalized.

    The 14th Amendment states:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

    Jurisdiction as defined by the framers meant total and complete. The words in the constitution have meaning. When the constitution says “jurisdiction” it means nothing less than total jurisdiction.

    Therefore, Obama, not being under the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born (wherever) was not a citizen at birth.

    It is undisputed that his status was governed by the United Kingdom at birth.

    If Obama was not a citizen at birth then he can only become a citizen through the process of naturalization when he reaches the age of majority, if he makes application to so do. If he is not a naturalized citizen, then he is not a citizen of the United States.

    There is no path for Obama to be declared a natural born citizen.

    It is clear to me that the only persons born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the US are also natural born citizens.

    If a person is born on US soil to a US citizen parent, with no father identified, the child would be a natural born citizen.

    Where am I wrong?

  3. Wow. How is this NOT seen as a tortuous act of deliberate obfuscation and dissembling of the core issue:

    “However, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as the president has to spend only one minute of his time to sign a consent form for release of his vital records, showing that he is…” [NBC].

    Here we have a correct explanation of an NBC as being “…one born in the country to two US citizen parents…” tied to completely extraneous crap that serve no plaintiff’s strategy I can grasp.

    This looks more like the willful planting of false-flag rhetoric.

    Why is a correct definition of NBC damagingly juxtaposed to a blatant red herring?

    Rhetorically, the extraneous language serves to mislead and reinforce a misleading meme: “the release of vital records” are what proves someone is NBC; i.e., NBC is not a birth status but a product of demonstrated regulatory or statutory compliance verified and validated by the appropriate form. In other words, produce a Hawaii birth certificate and you are thereby proven NBC.

    By association, the core NBC argument become convoluted and a matter to be determined by the production of official documents.

    Contrast this with the fact of Obama’s birth status admission. Contrast this with the unshakable fact of Obama’s birth status being other than the birth status of an NBC.

    Should the public ever grasp the simplicity of the NBC issue, Obama’s credence is toast.

    If I were Obama, I would be paying Orly Taitz to do what she is doing.

  4. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Leo,

    One of the most interesting aspects I find with respect to the natural born citizen requirement has to do with dual citizenship at birth and how that citizenship remains intact or legally removed in adulthood. If one is born with dual citizenship that fact becomes immutable in that the circumstances of one’s birth will never change; therefore, if you were a dual citizen at birth, you would always be a dual citizen at birth. However, in accordance with the laws of the two (or more) nations in which you had citizenship at birth when reaching an age of maturity, you could either lose citizenship to one or more of those nations, or you could renounce citizenship in one or more of those nations. As you pointed out in quoting the State Department’s policy, there is definitely an issue with respect to whether or not you hold dual citizenship in adulthood. If under a person’s specific circumstances they retain that citizenship, then they obviously have certain obligations/allegiance to the countries in which he or she holds citizenship.

    Therefore, as I contemplate a case going to the Supreme court such as if yours or Cort’s case had reached the Supreme Court, the court would have been faced with an extremely difficult case to rule upon (not an excuse for them not taking the case). On the one hand, they would have the fact that Barack Obama was a dual citizen at birth and that fact cannot change. But as an adult, he may bear no current allegiance to a foreign sovereign (this fact we cannot know right now because we do not have enough information and Obama will not produce it). So we are left with the question of whether or not the founding fathers were more concerned with allegiance acquired at birth or allegiance as an adult at the time the person wishes to become President, thus leaving us and the eligibility clause with a dilemma.

    So then I look at Jill Pryor’s work (http://www.scribd.com/doc/9655857/NBC-Natural-Born-Citizen-Jill-Pryor) with respect to this dilemma in my mind, and I begin to see her argument (if I have read her analysis correctly) that even naturalized citizens could be considered A2S1C5 natural born citizens. Of course, within her arguments, I think her arguments fail to adequately address the word “born” in the phrase natural born citizen.

    I find all of this important and fascinating when dealing with this extremely complex issue. I wonder as to your thoughts on these same points.

    My own conclusions are thus (whether fair or unfair): in accordance with the laws of nature (yes I mean nature not nations) one’s natural born citizen status does not change. The nature of one’s birth is thus: the citizenship of the parents (the natural part of the phrase), the place where one was born (the born part of the phrase) and citizen (the citizenship to which nation(s) one possessed at birth). The only conclusion that I have failed to clearly ascertain with certainty in my own mind is whether or not it was enough to have at least one U.S. parent at birth in order to be considered a natural born citizen. I tend to lean toward both parents must be U.S. citizens for one to be a natural born citizen in order to ensure allegiance to the United States. But I must admit that since a natural born citizen does not need to take an oath of allegiance to the United States, then even though they no longer possess allegiance to any other nation as an adult (given certain circumstances) they still cannot qualify as a natural born citizen and in my analysis here, let me just say that it gives me pause.

    [Ed. Foreign entanglements - avoid them like the plague. How many Presidents will the nation have? Just keep foreign influence as far away from the Commander In Chief as possible. Or, as we shall soon see - we face the consequences.]

  5. It was some darn good hypothetically blogging.

    An attonery once told me you neeed to say what you want to say in less than a page.

    Make it simple make it quick and use their strong point aganist them.

    I am no attonery but have paid one for his advice and took it as it was a sound legal advise. I think yours is also.

    It still seems to me the whole issue is getting the facts presented and a true legal ruling given based on those facts.

    If our SCOTUS can’t do that then of what good are they?

    Texo http://www.DixHistory.com

  6. Makes sense to me. Any case that has not placed the NBC issue at its center has not been able to gain wide support because they miss the point. Likewise any case, such as Leo’s, that hits the mark head on, but that does not seek to gain wide exposure misses an opportunity.

    [Ed. Well, I did everything I could to expose the case. The media covered it but for the most part they chose to tell their audience it was about a birth certificate or citizenship. You don't understand the matrix until you see your case lied about in 99% of the media outlets who cover it and the courts sabotage it. It was surreal.]

    Many congressmen have stated that if someone were able to produce proof that Obama is not qualified they would get behind it, but they claim that no one has done so. It’s not that it hasn’t been proven, it’s that the truth has been hidden behind many false premises, just like in the days of Chester Arthur.

    And then there is the little boy who cried wolf. If Orly finally puts together the right case, will that fact that she’s been black listed as a ‘crackpot’ be forgotten? Perhaps its time for someone else to take up the mantle.

    [Ed. If the pleadings don't nail the issues down, it doesn't matter if you cry wolf, dragon, caterpillar or abra cadbra - the judiciary will find a way to throw it out.]

  7. ooops, remove the Aguilar, sorry he was born in Mexico.

  8. The reason the birth cert is important is because some of us actually want to get him out of office, and that’s the only way. (if he wasn’t born in the country)

    We won’t get him out with the method you’ve advanced as it will never get enough traction, even though it’s true. You’ve testified to this yourself, many times on this blog.

    [Ed. If the nbc issue won't get him out, Bigfoot won't get him out either.]

  9. RJJohnson Says:

    “Furthermore, if any attorneys reading this are influenced to incorporate the tactical approach written above to amend existing complaints or to issue forthcoming complaints, I have no objection whatsoever and require no recognition thereto”

    Well said Leo. You’re one of the good guys.

    From what I understand, the Rhodes case is saying to the court that the burden on Obama to satisfy the Plaintiff’s request for proof that Obama is a legitimate Commander in Chief is very small. All that he would need to do is to reveal a long-form birth certificate that proved that both his parents were US citizens. Of course he can’t do this, but that is not yet a known fact (if you ignore the admissions by him that you sited). For the purpose of the case we pretend that Obama can easily prove his eligibility by showing his BC. After all, he claims to be eligible, so we can assume he can easily prove it by showing his BC. In reality, his BC will not be able to prove his eligibility. In fact, it will show that his father is Barack Obama Sr. who we know to be a British citizen. But if Obama claims he is eligible, the let him show a BC that proves this.

    The Rhodes case seeks to place the burden of proof on Obama to show that he is eligible, rather than placing the burden of proof on the Plaintiff to show that he is not. Rhodes claims to have legitimate doubts and thus asks for proof of legitimacy before following the orders from the chain of command.

    [Ed. The Constitution does not require a birth certificate. he has already admited British birth. You ask the court to decide the issue which has not factual dispute. You stipulate for purpose of that particular count, that the facts are undisputed as to place of birth and move from there.

    As for the BC issue you put that in a separate count and ask for the same exact thing as in the Rhodes petition. The court is therefore forced to look at it from both points of view and make decisions on each one separately. It's called pleading separate counts in the alternative. Pretty standard actually.

    The way you've suggested lets the court and Obama off the hook in that they just have to answer as to the BC. It's all about the BC aka Bigfoot. I don't understand the tactic of only doing it one way. But maybe I'm just a legal idiot.]

  10. Bots say the “subject to jurisdiction” only meant diplomats or enemies were excluded but that contradicts the civil rights act of 1866, and they say that WKA meant everyone born jus soli was a citizen…thought WKA was only for domiciled Chinese otherwise unable to naturalize?
    I think it means what it said, not what they want it to say!

  11. moonbeam45 Says:

    Ok.. I have been reading this blog for months now. I have no law degree.
    I do have a degree in common sense. Raised 4 kids and ran my own business.
    What I have been able to gather here is that the “devil’s” in the details.

    Fact.. Obama does not qualify for POTUS due to his own negligence. That one word is powerful. I lost thousands in a lawsuit due to the fact my lawyer forgot to add that one word “negligence”. I won the case.. but received no award.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Moonbeam

  12. Sheikh yer Bu'Tay Says:

    “I’m just hypothetically blogging on the issue.”

    Please keep blogging away, Leo! The “admissions against interests” tactic is the best I’ve heard yet on the whole NBC issue.

    Good work.

  13. Leo, I’m not a lawyer but have a legal mind.

    I agree with you regularly, especially that the our legal system, SCOTUS in particular, have failed us, thus placing the good ‘ol USA in tremendous peril.

    After following the Obama BC & NBC matter closely for over a year, I’ve long ago come to the ultimate conclusion that there is only one way to flush out the Usurper.

    Fat chance but nonetheless………A respected member of the media, during an Obama press conference would have to put him or herself on the line, stand up and ask the Man directly;

    Who are you? Why will you not offer the citizens of this country your credentials? Etc & etc…..

    Short of this there will be no “remedy” for the court system, IMHO.

  14. appears that anchor babies are not us citizens and not able to bring extended families to us and as illegals must leave

    [ed. Are you referring to a case?]

  15. Phil’s referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which says

    “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power . . . are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27).
    So — if ACT 301 does not undo the “any”…
    that means that Obama is not a US citizen at all, nor are anchor babies

    Wong Kim Ark does not specifically undo CRA of 1866, and though the 14th takes precedence (I’ve been told) it doesn’t contradict this and is built from it.

    Obama was a subject to a foreign power at birth.

    What’s your take on the status of things with respect to WKA and CRA of 1866 — the only people WKA applied to were Chinese domiciled nationals…
    ??

    [Ed I can't answer that right now. The answer would take an entire report. But it certainly does not go past permanently domiciled aliens.]

  16. I am an old engineer and try to keep things simple. I am also an old marine. I get angry when obama refuses to do a civilian hand salute when the us anthem is played. Obama claims british citizenship by descent from his father and should know that he is inelligible to be president. I have read your material for months and can come to no other conclusion but that he does not qualify as NBC. Since all three branches of government seem to be corrupt as you have found with your court filings perhaps our approach should be to go to washington on 9/12 and carry “Obama is British” signs to make the public more aware of the problems with this administration.

  17. Mr. Donofrio,

    Well said. Too bad we are doomed for the present.

    Here’s a perspective most folks are unwilling to say out loud…the Constitution is under severe threat of being suspended in any real sense. The future holds several possibilities; 1. In the years to come, the ideas held in our founding doc will come back in vogue. 2. Some folks will start fresh elsewhere (where in the world does LIBERTY hold sway?) in the hope of living as all truly free people were meant to. 3. The Tenth Amendment will be enforced or a state/people will utilize their INHERENT right to dissolve the present governmental relationship.

    I’ve been reading alot of T. Paine recently…his view that the severing of the King’s governance was based primarily in the belief that He could not (had not) FAIRLY addressed the needs of his SUBJECTS due to geographic and philosophical distance. I’m starting to believe the same arguement can be made regarding Washington, DC. A bizarre and sad fact when you consider our government is wholly sworn to uphold and defend a particular doc.

    -Noz

  18. Leo,

    I am confused by the first five paragraphs of this blog because it is not clear to me where the reader’s quote of Orly ends and your input begins.

    The first three paragraphs are those of the reader, beginning with, “Question from Reader” and ending with, “Come on, Leo, tell us Orly got it right this time.” The fifth paragraph is your writing, but while the fourth does seem to be what you wrote it is not precisely clear this is the case.

    Might you clarify this please?

    [Ed. clarified as of now by quotation marks. the dash is a matter of style.]

    Of a lesser concern, in the paragraph following the four points you suggest, there is a dash, rather than a comma, in the closing phrase. I believe it should be punctuated as follows, ” … to rid themselves of — was not at birth, and therefore can never be, a natural born citizen of the US.”

    Respectfully yours,
    Robare

  19. “… status as to citizenship of a woman born under the jurisdiction of the United States and married to a native of a foreign state….”
    Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915)

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/239/299/case.html

    “… Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1…”
    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html


    [Ed. You're quoting from the dissent which has no legal force. The pertinent quote from the MAJORITY opinion is as follows:


    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

    Page 377 U. S. 166

    Big difference as this quote has legal effect, the dissent does not. This confirms my prior analysis - all citizens have equal rights. Natural born is not a type of citizen, it is a description of a circumstance of citizenship and a national security measure. The majority could have phrased the quote as the dissent did, but refused to do so. Instead they highlighted that natural born citizens can be President...]

    Naturalization and Citizenship

    http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/35-naturalization-and-citizenship.html

  20. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: 14th Amendment

    phil stone Says above:

    “appears that anchor babies are not us citizens and not able to bring extended families to us and as illegal must leave [ed. Are you referring to a case?]”

    Phil’s question seems to relate less to this case than to the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and Starbeau’s question above:

    “I have a very difficult time getting Obama to any US citizenship other than naturalized. The 14th Amendment ….”

    This is not the full answer, but he is obviously not naturalized because the naturalization is a federally governed process and there is no evidence that he went through that process.

    PS
    The interpretation of 14th Amendment has been controversial. So this question is probably not new.

  21. People write about being a “dual citizen”, but it’s not like you get some certificate or card…
    What I really think, is say you were born of parents of two different citizenry, in one of their respective countries…if the laws are like the CRA of 1866 here, why you’d have to naturalize to both citizenships because neither one would be a given…meaning you’d basically have to pick them and swear oaths to them, which makes sense because those citizenships could by default conflict with one another…
    but like you so astutely pointed out with regards to the Dept of State Manual, someone with creative writing skills and no problems with dishonesty decided to put in the “even though” (parents were here illegally) clause.

  22. Perhaps you’ve seen this, if not, perhaps of some historical use:

    “Historical Practice and the Contemporary Debate Over Customary International Law

    “I. Judicial Power in the Early Republic
    First, the history. Professors Bellia and Clark argue that the founding generation entertained an “initial assumption that the United States—like the states—had received the common law and thus could prosecute and punish common law crimes, including offenses against the law of nations.”6 Bellia and Clark acknowledge that this assumption was widely rejected in the course of debates over the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.7 Indeed, when the Supreme Court definitively interred the doctrine of federal common law crimes in the 1812 case of United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, it could say that the question already had long been “settled in public opinion.”8

    A related debate in the early Republic, however, suggests even greater hostility to the idea of federal common lawmaking powers. As Justice Souter has pointed out, “the founding generation . . . join[ed] . . . an appreciation of its immediate and powerful common-law heritage with caution in settling that inheritance on the political systems of the new Republic.”10 The colonial and early state governments carefully limited their reception of English common law to those principles that were applicable to local conditions.11 Citizens of the young Republic often viewed the common law with considerable hostility; after all, they had just fought a revolution to throw off English rule…”

    This ambivalence played out in debates over ratification of the new national Constitution. All participants seem to have understood that the new federal Constitution did not receive the English common law as part of national law,13 unlike many of the state constitutions. Opponents of ratification went so far as to complain that the proposed document failed to guarantee common law rights.14 Federalists responded that receiving the common law into the federal Constitution would trample the diversity of the common law, as received in the several states; even worse, a federal reception would render the common law “immutable” and not subject to congressional revision.15 Hence, “the Framers chose to recognize only particular common-law concepts, such as the writ of habeas corpus, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, and the distinction between law and equity, U.S. Const., Amdt. 7, by specific reference in the constitutional text.”16 They insisted, however, that any general reception of the English common law into federal law would be “destructive to republican principles.”17

    …More generally, the early American reaction to the common law in both the Federal Constitution and the states suggests a general suspicion of unwritten, judge-defined law and a strong preference for legislative primacy. This is quite consistent, of course, with the Framers’ decision explicitly to authorize Congress to “define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.”18″

    Much more here:

    http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/historical-practice-and-the-contemporary-debate-over-customary-international-law

    [Ed. Excellent researched post. Well done.]

  23. The judge in this action Xavier Rodriguez has already denied the action.
    See his opinion – http://www.scribd.com/doc/19209069/RHODES-v-GATES-et-al-3-ORDER-DENYING-1-Motion-for-Temporary-Restraining-Order

    Orly needs to take a rest and come up with a unified strategy, instead I see her like Sheriff Bing-Bing-Bing Ricochet Rabbit filing cases on tangential issues hoping something will stick.

    One thing I appreciate about you Leo and Mario Apuzzo is that you both are discussing the issues that are to the core. With Orly I cannot tell what she is trying to demonstrate to the courts by her filings.

  24. “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”

    Wow. How is it that our current SCOTUS seem indifferent, if not ignorant, to this cogent reality DICTATED by the court?

    Last I heard, precedence was important in consideration of the law. Am I missing something?

    Mr. Obama’s chumminess with the high court should be irrelevant, if not unsavory, to those that bear the responsibility of discovering the truth in context with our Consitiution.

    Mr. Donofrio has stated aptly that NBC is a state of being and not one that can be retroactively conferred by statute. Either you are BORN without outside allegiances or you are not. Period. What do you think our founding fathers thought in the best interest of the fledgling republic? Certainly, it was not a POTUS pressed with questionable external influence. Good Lord, how obvious does it have to be for folks to see this fundamental truth?

    -Noz

    [Ed. The courts, congress and media have sold us out. Perhaps the US citizens, if properly educated, will take the constitution back - either by voting (although with touch screen voting so prevalent, who knows how our votes are even recorded) or by revolution - which doesn't necessarily require violence. A taxpayer revolt would shut these bastards down fast. I'm not advocating anybody break the law, just making an astute observation. If our founding fathers were willing to die to preserve our freedoms and destroy the monarcht matrix they were ensnared in, then perhaps patriots of today will also be inclined to take a few punches to destroy this matrix as well.]

  25. [...] theory. (Of course, conspiracies exist. But until facts are proved, … Continued here:  The Dual Cititzen POTUS Disqualification Issue Stands Alone … Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: and-never, birth, everyone-has, from-the-birth, issue-stands, [...]

  26. I’m another “not a lawyer” with an opinion, but my opinion is re-enforced by recent events in the health care debate. Most of the courts, all of the media and half of the citizenry are absolutely prejudiced against the legal questions of eligibility (can we stipulate that?). Perhaps the only real event that can offer much hope of “outing” this deal is an enraged public, demanding justice under the threat of revolt (I’m not suggesting revolt).

    The NBC issue has solid legal footing but the courts won’t touch it unless they are forced to, and the trouble in getting public support, is that people don’t understand the issues. Even if some understand, the NBC question appears to be a mere technicality, so it isn’t widely supported.

    The birth certificate issue on the other hand, the idea of having an illegitimate president, an impostor who was actually BORN ON FORREIGN SOIL, is something that the average red blooded American citizen can identify with.

    My point is that Orly, even with doubtful legal strategy and the uncertainty of evidence (the records), may be driving the only bus that could garner enough outrage to force the truth out into the open.

    [Ed. I disagree strongly. The citizens can easily understand the concept of dual citizens and equally understand the State Department's position (codified in the courts) that such people owe allegiance to the foreign nation. It's very simple, but the people have not had this explained to them

    Furthermore, if you're going to speak of the dual citizen issue to the public and file law suits allegedly thereto, then you have a responsibility to make that clear in pleadings.

    Point: DO BOTH ISSUES RIGHT.

    As Dr. Evil would say, "Pretty standard actually."]

  27. Pam in US Says:

    I am fascinated reading the posts. I can actually understand most of what is written and agree that the only absolute solution is that Obama is not a “natural Born” citizen. It is my understanding that the case must be filed by a plantiff who has “standing” and that no one so far has passed the qualification for “standing”. (Sorry if this has been addressed already) What, exactly will satisfy that requirement? Apparently no “ordinary” person may question the Constitution but is this not a case of not following the law of the Constitution?

    [Ed. Welcome, Pam. Actually, we have no idea why SCOTUS failed to grant full review of my case and Cort Wrotnowski's case. They didn't say and so we should not assume the issue was standing as the rules for standing in those cases coming from State court are vastly different and much easily overcome than Federal court standing issues.]

  28. Phil Stone, I’m going on 9/12. Now I know what sign to carry. Thanks from Idaho.

  29. Leo

    When I first read the comment of a reader (6. JohnC | 08.28.09) in response to an article published on csmonitor.com, I was totally incensed on your behalf and was prepared to respond in a like manner.

    http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/08/27/dc-decoder-where-were-the-birthers-in-1881/

    After I calmed down a bit, I decided that any response coming from me would not satisfy the missimpressions of the commenter, or of any other readers of the comment. Please understand that I am not suggesting or recommending a response from you, but feel that if you were not made aware of this comment, you would not have the chance to make that decision for yourself.

    Respectfuly
    loucon

    [Ed. More propaganda. I've conclusively established via law review articles of the day (see last week's post about the George Collins article) that the public was not aware of Chester Arthur having been born British. This is encouraging to me. It shows that the issues is beginning to sway from the BC to the British birth issue as the media swarms to protect its ineligible President. Feel free to post a link to my articles. Eventually people will come to this blog for truth when they are sick of lies and propaganda.]

  30. Leo,

    I see running through all the blog sites, and from virtually everyone I discuss (in person or by email) with the issues of the ineligibility of Obama that “uninformed” citizens of the United States do not understand the workings of our courts, especially the Supreme Court. They do not understand why the Supreme Court (or other courts) don’t just step in, site constitutional law, and issue a ruling that Obama is not a natural born citizen and its over.

    There are two facts that need to be understood to make our courts and what has happened to our country come into reality focus that everyone needs to understand:

    1. You do not go to court for justice. You go for a decision.

    2. There are more democrats than there are Americans!

  31. You know, you’re a great lawyer, and the obots seem to have their scholars too. I would say that let’s forget all the court cases and just focus on the LAW OF COMMON SENSE. I think our founding fathers had great common sense. So, for God’s sake, why would they ever want a dual citizen to be the commander-in-chief?
    And Kathy, I looked up rootweb. Yeah it’s a genealogy site, webofdeception is a private investigator’s site. big difference. the genealogy site is going by a different record. There is no “death certificate” in the social security archives, because “Kelly Dunham” is still using her social security number. Stanley worked for the ford foundation and helped 3rd world people to get loans. She is what is known as a poverty pimp, charging exorbitant interest on loans. also the Ford foundation developed into the CIA. So, she had a lot of connections to their operations as well. Records show that her social security number is still being used in property transactions and money laundering.

  32. [...] The Dual Cititzen POTUS Disqualification Issue Stands Alone. « Natural Born Citizen naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/the-dual-cititzen-potus-disqualification-issue-stands-alone – view page – cached #Natural Born Citizen RSS Feed Natural Born Citizen » The Dual Cititzen POTUS Disqualification Issue Stands Alone. Comments Feed Natural Born Citizen DONOFRIO V. WELLS NEW OFFICIAL BLOG Was Obama’s Mother a US Citizen At The Time of Obama’s Birth? — From the page [...]

  33. The simple fact is that the SCOTUS have had this argument before them in at least two cases.

    They denied cert on each case.

    [Ed. Incorrect. They had "emergency stay applications" before them, not full petitions for cert. Emergency stay applications are a completely different animal. Either of those two cases could still potentially arrive at their door as full petitions for cert... Cort was still considering a full petition for cert. I am not. Time will tell. People change their minds. The more people like you misrepresent the facts of my case, the more compelled I feel to get back in the ring. I will say this, y'all are motivating me to put my thinking cap on and get back in the ring. The right client comes along - like some of those Chrysler dealers perhaps (hint hint) and I might be so inclined as to put the litigation cap back on.]

    You are left therefore with only three possible answers:

    1) the USSC is grossly incompetent and “missed” the fact that the President was ineligible.

    2) the USSC is corrupt and willfully denied cert despite this “legitimate” issue.

    3) the USSC believes that the argument that the potential for dual nationality at birth is not relevent and that the President was and is an NBC.

    [ed. or the USSC found a procedural loophole which had nothing to do with the merits of the case. Last time I checked, the docket gives ZERO information as to why the applications were not granted. Perhaps the remedy we asked for was not - in their minds available to them. Perhaps they are waiting for a better brief. Nobody knows. Not you. Not anyone. The conferences were in private, no law clerks even allowed in.]

    If “1” is correct, the Court will not likley admit an error and revisit this, so you’re screwed.

    If “2” is correct, you’re also screwed.

    It is quite probable that “3” is right, and therefore this continued blather is ‘much ado about nothing.’

    [Ed. You conveniently left out the "none of the above" option.]

  34. A ton of thanks to you, Leo, for roughing out the right tactic to get this matter heard. I hope Orly and other attorneys will benefit from your generosity. But I thought Orly did have separate points on Obama’s duality of citizenship and did not depend solely on paragraph 24 to get there.

    [Ed. No. Not true. It's all about paragraph 24.]

    Oh well, with same-day speed Judge Rodriguez summarily dismissed Orly’s application for a Temporary Restraining Order. Note that this was not a full complaint but simply a time-sensitive plea for time to present a full complaint. It was probably prepared in haste because of the date Captain Rhodes had been ordered to report for duty.

    But the Rhodes application for a TRO did undoubtedly present facts and reasonings that warranted serious judicial consideration. Instead, what Orly got was a most superficial brush-off, with the judge accusing Orly of presenting ” . . .nothing but conjecture and subjective belief to substantiate the basis for her [the plaintiff's] claims.”

    [Ed. I think the way the complaint is written made it easy for the judge to say that because the complaint appears to allege that the contents of a birth certificate will settle the issue. As a matter of PR, the BC issue is a matter of conjecture. The complaint plays right into that.]

    Let’s not blame the victim of such arbitrary, unfair judicial high-handedness. Judge Rodriguez is the villain here, not Orly Taitz.

    Leo, I have to differ when you ridicule the idea that Obama Sr. may not be Jr.’s daddy [Ed. Snip - the only possible relevance that would have is if Obama were ever to raise it as a defense to not being eligible. The day Obama points to his biographies and his entire history, his whole extended family in Kenya and says, "Sorry I got that one wrong, my Dad was this other guy..." that's gonna be a bad day for Obama (although I guess we'll have to stop calling him that). Give me a break. Don't waste my time.]

  35. So you are trying to imply that the SCOTUS fully recognized the “fact” that the President was not eligible to serve because his Father was not a US citizen and then… what?

    [Ed. I am not implying anything. I am stating a fact. We do not know. You do not know. I do not know. We have no way of knowing.]

    They chose to ignore it because the briefs weren’t perfect?

    [Ed. Not because the briefs weren't "perfect" - but perhaps the lower court history, as was presented to them, didn't allow them to invoke jurisdiction. For example, I made a motion for summary judgment - under statute I was able to do that. However, the lower court Judge, who stamped the motion as "accepted" in his chambers (I still have the stamped document) later decided to act as if that motion has not been stamped, then mailed me back the Money Order for the case to make it appear as if the case had not been filed. Therefore, to this day, the computerized docket of my lower court case has no official history as an actual Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative Writs. As such, the Supreme Court would not be able to verify with the lower court in NJ that my case was actually filed as the actual case presented to them in my SCOTUS stay application.

    Whether this had anything to do with their refusal to grant the stay application to stop the national election is not known to anyone but them.]

    They chose to ignore it because the briefs weren’t perfect? They saw the merits of the argument, knew that the President was not eligible and – before the election and before the inauguration – they willfully let a constitutional crisis occur?

    [Ed. Again. We don't know what happened behind closed doors. But that was the effect. I am happy to see you admit there exists now a Constitutional crisis.]

    Those choices are still either my #1 or my #2.

    I am not willfully misrepresenting anything. The issue was before the SCOTUS, they declined to hear it, period.

    [Ed. Again, there is nothing in the docket which allows us to know whether they made any decision on the merits. Any lawyer will tell you the same. When Jonathan Turley was on with Olbermann discussing my case, he said that they Supreme Court would rather drink molten lead than take this issue, but Turley also said that their desire not to take it says nothing as to the merits per se. Seriously, you're making a fool of yourself to keep insisting you know that the case was heard on the merits. No serious lawyer would feel comfortable publishing such an assumption in any law journal. What you are saying propaganda.

    Perhaps they declined for any number of reasons, but to say one knows it was on the merits is a lie. You believe it, OK. Believe what you like, just state it as a belief. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty.]

    And I will state this again: if they didn’t see this issue that is “obvious” to you, or they are “in on it,” your “case” will never see the USSC act on it unless some lesser court makes some ruling adverse to the President, and that’s pretty doubtful.

    [Ed. Lots of things are doubtful... then things change. The world used to be flat.]

  36. Wondering Says:

    I’m confused and frustrated about the bickering over the strategies needed or that are being used to remove the illegal alien from America’s highest office.
    On the offense we can say that the illegal alien needs to prove who he is. Therefore the illegal alien has the burden of proof to show how he is qualified to be where he is. But the plaintiff has to have standing to have the illegal alien prove he is qualified to be where he is now.

    Given the arguments of justiciability and a good possibility that the SUPREMES may just conclude that they do not have jurisdiction to act , then what?
    Now isn’t it possible for ANY and all citizens who die under this illegal aliens orders have their deaths reviewed by their survivors, parentsm wives, chidren…etc. Surely the latter would have ‘standing’ to bring criminal charges against the illegal alien for his illegal orders given to cause the deaths of loved ones.

  37. Hi Leo
    I wish that you might consider taking our latest idea / approach forward.
    I bet that we could raise the money required for you. Yes, you have exhibited a lot of fundamental horse sense and critical thinking in arriving at this juncture! By the way I moss your visits to Plains Radio Network now Texas Broadcasting Network. Suggestion why not visit and speak with Ed & Caren Hale / Ken Dunbar et al and describe the approach tactics and strategy. We need to do something different to speed up the resolution of this issue for the countries sake.

    Separately I have attached some info from PRN / TBN FORUM re the 13th amendment to the US Constitution. I do not wish to derail or de focus you but this is a topic of interest as well. No disrespect to Lawyers however might this help clean out congress and rebuild the peoples government? Just a wishful thought. You see I think we must be much more creative and not discount any viable approach less careful analysis.

    AS always with great respect for you.
    Regards,
    attachments;
    David
    Along the lines of the title thing that you recently mentioned that no rank and title above citizen is permitted. For example a US Citizen unless permitted by US Congress and POTUS as only a honor (like General David Dwight Eisenhower US Army General of allied forces was Knighted by BG) can not be granted a title of a foreign country like Knight, Sr Charles , Baron etc. Well, another conflict that came up concerning such is captured below.
    I want to ask a lawyer what they know about this history next.
    wfh
    PS
    Perhaps this is the vehicle to clean out our congress and re take control of our citizens Central government!

    ORIGINAL 13th Amendment Disappeared: No Lawyers in Congress!

    The original 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified by the 13th and final state required on March 12, 1819 (though possibly in February of 1812), “disappeared” after being printed for the last time in 1876, to be replaced by the CURRENT 13th Amendment (the anti-slavery / surrender of States’ Rights to the federal government amendment) which was ratified (under Confederate duress) in 1865. The ORIGINAL 13th was and still is the Law of the Land. What does it say?

    “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

    In other words, lawyers who swear allegiance to the “Bar,” thereby placing the ‘Esquire’ or ‘Esq.’ title after their name, take on a title which prohibits them from being part of our government! One of the principle purposes of this Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in Congress.

    Many are not aware that the “Bar” is a private club, and Bar Associations throughout the world are apparently signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple in London. The Crown Temple uses the Banking and Judicial system of the City of London, which is a sovereign and independent territory of Great Britain (similar to Washington, D.C. in this country).

    The prohibition of titles and gifts from foreign governments WERE ALREADY in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 9, Clause), but this Amendment added an enforceable strict penalty for receiving them, i.e., inability to hold office and loss of citizenship.

    Further proof that this Amendment was ratified is the fact that no Bar Associations were formed or operated in this country for 45 years between 1822 and 1867. Printed evidence of this 13th Amendment was found in literature of 23 U.S. states and territories as well as federal publications .

    So why was the original 13th Amendment “dropped” (though not dropped from our laws)? We can only speculate as to the HONESTY of our Congressmen….but the TONA Research Committee, a group of people who’ve dedicated 26 years to researching this Amendment, claim IT’S STILL U.S. LAW, waiting only to be publicly recognized and enforced once again.

    http://www.w3f.com/patriots/13/13th-01.html

    http://www.libertyforlife.com/constitution/missing_13th_amendment.htm

    http://www.amendment-13.org/

    [Ed. No court will ever recognize this 13th amendment regardless of whether the facts support the thesis. No court nowhere. No judge will allow any jury to hear this argument - same goes for the ratification of the 16th amendment. Whether it's true or not doesn't really matter. Truth is purposely denied in is country especially in the judicial branch.]

  38. The way you have framed the issue here Leo is so straightforward. It makes me question Orly’s motives or perhaps she is just way in over her head. Most people though would realize this and defer to those with more experience especially when it comes to matters of such importance.
    In any case, through your work, the nbc issue has become abundantly clear. Back in December, I was worried that if the Supreme Court did take your case, they would falsely come up with some definition of nbc that would qualify Obama. Now I am certain that there is no way any legitimate court can define nbc other than born on US soil with two citizen parents. You just simply cannot have any sort of foreign influence at birth to be an nbc. It would be performing national suicide to do so. However, by the court’s refusing to take your or Cort’s case, I think they have accomplished the same thing.

    [Ed. SCOTUS would have no choice to rule against me, but in doing so they would make complete asses of themselves... the amount of lying and obfuscating they would have to undergo to justify such an assault on historical truth would be immense. So they tried to stop my case with clerk tactics and then when they were forced to acknowledge the case and Cort's case they simply refused to hear these cases telling us no reason why. As Jonathan Turley told Keith Olberman, the Supreme Court would rather drink molten lead then hear this case. Turley is also on record as saying they should hear the case - I'm quite proud of those quotes.]

  39. [Ed. Please read this one dear readers - Willem nails it.]

    The matter of foreign entanglements weave a wicked web. From the BCCI/Ryadi clan to the Buddist Monks of the Gore campaign to the LORAL scandals, the problem of offshore money contaminating our political process has been a big one.

    This doesn’t need to be a conspiracy theory. We can readily see this entropy in the national history. It used to be the electoral college picked the POTUS with the political parties and a national election campaign of singular individual being excluded from the process. It used to be the US Senators were elected by their state governments and not by the state’s residents at large. Now the organ intended by the framers to directly represent the interest of each state government is completely broken, and our US Senators worship each other and/or themselves.

    Foreign influence and entanglements can only reduce the dedication elected representatives and governmentally employed persons show to the American people, as the money that sustains them is substantially coming from, on behalf of, or for the purpose of, interacting with and servicing foreign interests.

    This is a structural problem in our government that has gotten worse and has reached an apex in the 2008 election and the 111th Congress now in the grip of a fascistic collective psychosis.

    Institutions get sick. They become diseased. They become septic. Our Constitution’s framers understood this.

    Corruption is the most insidious enemy of Liberty.

    Our crises is real, and sadly, it seems to have reached critical mass. This, I think, is largely made possible by the FRCP structurally constricting access of citizen plaintiffs to the federal courts. This, along with Congress keeping the federal courts understaffed, overwhelmed and underfunded, has helped facilitate the institutional pathology now in full bloom. This was the feedback loop intended to protect the Constitution in times like this. But that loop has been long closed by congress, to be opened only to a select few whose access is a product of procedure, not merit.

    So, through away the tin foil hats. This is the same old tyranny. The boogie men are our neighbors, neighbor’s neighbors and ourselves. The worst are in the Senate, but the most insane are in the House. And I worry a psychopath sits upon them all. This is also seen in the natural selection of processes of human history. Sick institutions select for psychopaths to run them. The 20th Century alone has many examples.

    Throughout human history, Feudalism has been the dominant model of human governance and operates governmentally around the world today unchecked, with only Israel and the United States offering an exception to the norm. Feudalism is the model that operates in the universities and the schools, and in most all corporations and institutions.

    Point being, our Constitution and resulting government was a revolutionary exception to the norm, and a self-evident threat to the feudal norm that dominates the people of other nations. We are the enemy of these governments however nice we might be. That we exist in our Constitutional form is a threat to the world order.

    We have enjoyed over two centuries of this great American exception to the feudal norm. And have you noticed how offensive the concept of American exceptionalism has become to the present academic and ruling elite? Have you noticed the campaign to shame, dissemble and reduce our traditions of exceptionalism?

    We have become desensitized to the feudal history of man and thus, to its internal spread. The misguided moral vanity that uses the law to pursue and engage in prohibition in its various forms and actively seeks to violate individual choice, privacy or independence is found everywhere in modern America, from compulsory education to sexual choice. This totalitarian puritanism has damaged our Constitution and our Republic and has corrupted the ethos of Liberty upon which it was founded.

    For the last several decades, the main tool has been “just say no to Drugs.”

    Now we’re at the end game: “Just say no to Liberty.”

    The American public has been saying this for some time, only now it’s happening out loud.

    But what good is Freedom when you have no Liberty?

    In the Hubris of petit moralism, too many have fallen victim to the vanity that they are somehow entitled to be the master of their neighbors.

    After decades of this vain and ever-expanding rogue moralism (the wolves of legalism in sheeps clothing) the enforcers we have elected have deduced correctly that we collectively are fools and they are just as easily the master of us all.

    Is this not exactly what we see in our elected government today?

    [Ed. Bravo! Excellent comment.]

  40. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    Leo,

    I think probably the most valuable aspects of your blog right now is its continued effort to record the truth. You had mentioned in your Taranto propaganda pieces the Orwell quote of “who controls the past, controls the future, and who controls the present, controls the past.” With all of the rewriting of history on NBC and dual citizenship at birth, we are not far away from that statement becoming true with regard to the NBC issue and the dual citizenship at birth of Barack Obama. Orwell’s “The Ministry of Truth” is alive and well in modern day America. But fortunately, there are those like you, Leo, making sound arguments and showing the true history of events (including the true history of Chester Arthur). Your value Leo, even if there is no other value, is that you are recording the truth of the past helping to ensure the hope of our future.

    [Ed. We are in an information war. Those who push propaganda like Taranto are information fascists. The man lied through his teeth to protect Obama. I wonder how an entity such as he can even call himself a man when he is beholden to other men in such doglike fashion.]

  41. Whistleblower Says:

    In addition to all of this, we must remember the oath taken by our Acting-President.

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    That “to the best of my ability” part should be the source of major concern when the POTUS has dual loyalty.

    I see no reason to believe that a President who has taken the steps that Obama has to avoid directly confronting the issue of his “natural born citizen” status, would not take additional steps to be less than transparent in other areas. (Wait a minute! He already has been less than transparent in other areas)

    [Ed. Don't forget, he is on record as stating the Constitution is a flawed document.]

  42. The real question is, pertaining to full jurisdiction, would all those anchor babies grow up and be willing to be drafted???

    [Ed. Bho boo, please publish any links to research on this idea above regarding ANCHOR BABIES Babies and being drafted. I am interested in a possible line of attack as to this.]

    Without legal acknowledgment of it, and full jurisdiction over said citizen, “dual citizenship” in the US is a phantom prospect. It simply means a person born subject to another jurisdiction, could choose to naturalize to either country unless that country, or as in the case of Canada, had no original caveats, and if relevant countries allowed both. Dual Citizen in the US means more or less “pre-naturalized”.

    301(c)of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 USC 1401(c)] says (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    Understand the inordinate forces in play to make anchor babies automatic citizens in the US, even though no such law nor SCOTUS precedent exists, it is an ingrained presumption if or until it does become a law. ACT, nor any legal ruling or document, makes a baby under any other jurisdiction a citizen of these United States, though he can easily naturalize and though he may be treated as if he were (licenses, voting rights?).

    The CRA of 1866, precluding US Citizenship for native-borns subject to ANY foreign power…the CRA of 1866 unless specifically superceded is still in effect; and it has not been superceded, and was the basis of the non-conflicting 14th amendment 2 years later.

    Wong Kim Ark also is specific in its issuance. Here’s the final holding of the case:
    “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”

    Keep in mind Judge Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur, who was a usurper and not a natural born citizen jus soli jus sanguinis president. And so the finding language is dicey yet still on point:
    “…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
    So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born. – The Court does not ever say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen. This referenced only the permanently domiciled Chinese parents were precluded from naturalization, as opposed to those parents who never chose to naturalize as American citizens, and still references allegiance.

    Minor v. Happersett stated that no 14th amendment citizen could be a natural born citizen (because the 14th was included in to the Constitution 6 years prior) and the recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals issuance that no person could be assigned the status of “natural born citizen” because it is a state of birth. The Constitution does not define a natural born citizen, as it was a concept of The Law of Nations clearly understood to the founders, but it does say what it is not, in clearly setting it apart in definition from any 14th amendment “U.S. Citizen” in Article II section 1 clause 5 by use of the word “OR”. Mathematically speaking, jus soli jus sanguinis is the only remaining permutation, as natural born citizen is nowhere in the 14th amendment. John Bingham, wrote into the Congressional Record:

    “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”
    – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    John McCain is neither a natural born citizen. Meant to equalize culpability, Senate Resolution 511’s declaration that he was (which the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Clark v. US just said cannot ever be done) is invalid. He was born in Panama, not on a military base since it was not built until he was 5. Within S.R. 511 is perhaps inadvertently included the definition of natural born citizens, which he nor Obama satisfies.

    To those who argue that aliens are held to criminal account, well…one third of the US prison population is made up of illegal aliens. Jurisdiction has a legal definition, which can include political, personal, legal and geographical subsets. The illegal alien can be prosecuted for being in the geographical jurisdiction, under the legal jurisdiction, but the government cannot conscript them into military service under personal or political jurisdiction. If a pre-naturalized or dual-citizen fills out a selective service registration, he may be subjecting himself to personal and political jurisdiction which would make him a complete US citizen.

  43. The above was a letter I am writing to the author of this dual citizenship page:

    http://www.richw.org/dualcit/

    who admits his son born in Canada to a Canadian mother and himself, an American, only has Canadian documentation that he is a Candadian citizen…none from the US.

    I have since heard that when such dual citizens “prenaturalized” turn 18, they are required to declare their citizenship “naturalize”. Back when we did have a draft, they could be drafted by our military as well as their home country’s military if they didn’t declare. Technically, the US does not allow dual citizenship, more tolerates the condition and that if a person gets into some trouble overseas, the US Consulate won’t be able to help them as easily – or as willingly.

  44. Since an illegal alien has all the benefits and none of the responsibilities of US citizenship, why would they even ever WANT to become US citizens, and why shouldn’t all US citizens give up their own citizenship and become “citizens of the world”?

    They can vote, get driver’s licenses, get free Embalmacare, don’t have to fight in a war, don’t pay taxes…

    “Citizen of the World”…hmmm

  45. GratefulForLeo Says:

    [Ed. ...I will say this, y'all are motivating me to put my thinking cap on and get back in the ring. The right client comes along - like some of those Chrysler dealers perhaps (hint hint) and I might be so inclined as to put the litigation cap back on.]

    Leo has indicated that he cannot ethically solicit clients. Anyone who is able to speak more eloquently than I about Leo’s research and wants to encourage a potential client to seek Leo’s legal representation may want to contact

    http://www.hometownautodealers.org/
    The Committee to Restore Dealer Rights, formed in the wake of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies to protect the rights of thousands of terminated auto dealerships and the customers and communities they serve. It is co-chaired by Jack Fitzgerald, owner of Fitzgerald Auto Malls in three states, Alan Spitzer, owner of Spitzer Auto Group in Ohio, and Tammy Darvish, vice president of DARCARS in Maryland and Washington Director of the National Automobile Dealers Association.

    Contact Info:
    Committee to Restore Dealer Rights
    c/o Spitzer Management, Inc.
    150 East Bridge Street
    Elyria, OH 44035

    For media inquiries, please contact Craig Brownstein at (202) 326-1799

  46. we need a good lawyer to take obama to the limit

    all we got is one bumbling around

    learning from one failure after another

    too bad we are not all on the same page on this issue

  47. bob strauss Says:

    Do you see any hope, in the case filed, in the Superior Court of DC? According to patriot hearts radio blog, this court, is above, US District Court of DC, and they are suing the US as a corporation. Have you heard about this case, and can you comment, and put it into layman’s lingo?

    [Ed. I'm not quite sure how that will play out. I need to do more research, but I find it highly interesting and the interviews were amazing. Good stuff.]

  48. “Time will tell. People change their minds. The more people like you misrepresent the facts of my case, the more compelled I feel to get back in the ring. I will say this, y’all are motivating me to put my thinking cap on and get back in the ring. The right client comes along – like some of those Chrysler dealers perhaps (hint hint) and I might be so inclined as to put the litigation cap back on.]”

    Leo what would happen if you were to file a Full Petition or Certification with the Superior Court of the District of Columbia as a civil case along with your Dual Citizen POTUS outlined on this blog.

    What kind of cap would you need for that?

    P.S. You are already ROBIN HOOD to a lot of people! Put on the tights(CAP)and follow through.

    Let me get this straight. Obama’s health care plan will be written by a committee whose head
    says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it and
    whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgen general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.

    Thanks for all the hard work Leo……………..

  49. Leo, if you will allow this, this video needs to go viral. This would be more in tune with the subject of the U.S. being a corporation, and how to take a big chunk out of it. I know many “lurk” here, without commenting, and might appreciate this…

    Hip-Hop/Rap is not really my cup of tea, as I’m more the classic rock/prog metal kind of guy. However, this video/song will resonate with the current generation. Disseminate this among your kids, to get it on their facebook and myspace pages.

    It is “low budget,” but still quite effective. Watching this for me was reminiscent of Megadeth’s “Peace Sells,” or Queensryche’s “Empire.” I’m wondering what the subject of “Ending the Fed,” would be like in the hands of Dave Mustaine, or Geoff Tate…

    These thoughts have been resonating through my mind of late. If what Rod Class and Joyce from the “Corporation” research being revealed to us is valid, then possibly all our efforts (including the NBC issue) may be moot in the short term. I don’t believe the Constitution is dead per say. The “appearance” and more importantly, the public “exercising” of the 2nd amendment shows that there is still some life.

    When Obama/Soetoro reiterated that he is a “citizen of the world,” then just maybe he was confirming, that this is all that is necessary to be Chancellor of the Corporation of the United States. [not America] Instead of the Constitution being dead per say, it would be better to think of it in terms of say being “held hostage,” or in a coma, or say in mothballs. It can be rescued, it can be revived, it can be recommissioned, and brought back into the service of the people.

    Come November, we are certainly going to find out (via Class et al) just how much of a Constitution exists for us. In the meantime, it appears all our efforts may well be just “barking up the wrong tree.” Difficult to remove the Chancellor or Chairman of a corporation, when you in reality don’t have any “shares” or voting rights. Perhaps this is what we all now are beginning to realize by the statements of the current courts that we don’t have “standing.” You can’t much expect, to be able to demand passports and other documents of the CEO of a entity (corp), when you have no actual “invested interest” in said entity.

    In my college days (80s), I studied “corporate raiders,” as part of my business curriculum. What these guys did, was purchase distressed companies (by virtue of their weak balance sheets), and reorganize (in some cases actually break them up) them for better profitability. Perhaps, “We The People,” need to think in these terms of strategy in order to get our republic back. We have to think in terms of procuring enough “shares,” to effect a takeover.

    The current democratic election process is apparently a sham. The current “two-party” apparatus is a monolithic chimera. What is it going to take, to get things back into proper equilibrium? I can’t rightly say [no one for the matter at the moment, except for Rod Class et al] We apparently, have not done our homework to satisfaction. Much more intel is needed, in order to properly counter our adversary [and just "Who/What" that adversary really is].

    What we CAN attempt to do, at least in the interim, is deny them their “procurement power,” by ending the FED. [reserve system] If this is still possible, like in the days of Jackson, we are going to find out as well in short order… [by or before 2012]

  50. Suborned in the U.S.A. by Andrew C. McCarthy on National Review Online

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=

    Mr. McCarthy states:

    “… Obama, as we shall see, presents complex dual-citizenship issues. For now, let’s just stick with what’s indisputable: He was also born a Kenyan citizen.”

    He argues both sides of the issue and finishes with:

    “What’s wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented ‘transparency': Give us all the raw data and we’ll figure it out for ourselves?”

    Twice I’ve emailed Leo’s blog link to him, asking that he write about the A1S2C5 question and the fact that the merits of the cases have never been adjudicated.

    Maybe if more people email and ask him to write more in-depth articles (co-written with Leo perhaps), then the dual citizen/A1S2C5 concern would gain more national exposure in a well-regarded magazine and website.

  51. 108th CONGRESS
    2d Session

    S. 2128

    To define the term `natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

    February 25, 2004
    Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    ——————————————————————————–

    A BILL
    To define the term `natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Natural Born Citizen Act’.

    SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’.

    (a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means–

    (1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and

    (2) any person born outside the United States–

    (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or

    (B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.

    (b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States’, when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
    END

    http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s2128.html

    If the Obots were so sure BHO was NBC, why did they introduce this Act?

    [Ed. The act didn't pass. And it could never have been found to be Constitutional.]

  52. I did a google search for subject to the jurisdictions( yes with an s) but came up empty.

    Seems like one is only naturally subject to one jurisdiction at birth, and tie goes to the father.

    Quo Warranto? Charlie’s Golden Ticket

    http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
    The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

    Just as a person cannot be naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while owing allegiance to another nation, neither can anyone born.

  53. Remembering what you went through, Leo, to even get it there, I’d say that it was a fix in same way or manner. Fixing as in the way that they won’t rule upon it and the lower court “got out of Dodge,” so to speak. Something went terribly wrong in that lower court, but the SC had a similar problem, in my honest opinion. I just knew that it was crazy. Thinking back on it now, your case seemed strong, so something was going on then.

  54. I.e., Leo, your case was the one that I had my eyes on because I felt that it was a strong case. It just did, and it appeared that way from the research that you had done. Something weird was just happening. I hate to think the SC knew what to do beforehand. But it almost seems that way, doesn’t it? Something just ain’t right.

  55. Does the Constitution allow for a person born not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US eligibility for POTUS?

    Yes or No?

    Seems to me all pleadings should revolve around this question based on what we know.

  56. Leo, someone from Citizen Wells posted this at this blog, and the person calls himself/herself Prairie. We all told them it’s a beautiful poem and so very truthful. Please read this and pass it on. The person told everyone to use it, but at first they were afraid that no one would like it. I think it’s so to the point. It’s called “Awake.”

    Awake

    The air has quickly cooled,
    The winds have shifted course.
    Dark clouds fill the sky,
    As a looming, evil force.

    A flash of distant light,
    Thunder cracks, the silence breaks.
    With the Perfect Storm upon us,
    The sleeping Giant wakes.

    There is fire in his eyes,
    As he looks upon the land.
    He attempts to raise a fist,
    With shackles on his hands.

    He cries out in despair,
    Yet, his voice is nearly mute.
    Muffled over time,
    By the censorship of truth.

    His flesh is cold and wet.
    His muscles sore and weak.
    Still, he braces for the worst. . .
    As he rises to his feet.

    The mighty giant stands,
    As storm waves buckle both his knees.
    The wind and rain are punishing. . .
    Yet, he will not retreat

    .

    With the blood of generations,
    Pumping through his veins. . .
    And the will of a free people,
    He breaks away the chains.

    Silent now no more,
    Liberty reclaimed.
    Revolution brewing,
    As WE THE PEOPLE WAKE.
    —Prairie

    [Ed. Hopefully not too late to wake.]

  57. Why not nudge Glenn Beck? He is raising questions about the people with whom Obama is surrounding himself. Why not illuminate this issue on a program which is attracting 3 million viewers? Just a suggestion. I plan to e-mail him. Have you contacted him at all?

  58. Didn’t realize Inhofe was Republican. It makes sense now. They were covering each other’s potential candidates for the 2008 election.

  59. As far as I can see we have one path of action with this that is legal and morally right and that is to fight to get legislation that will ensure that some ethical, objective body ensures that ALL candidates for the presidency are proven to be natural born citizens. At the very least this raises the issue for all candidates going forward and ensures the issue some national awareness. And if done before 2012 will subject Obama to the same standard that will apply to every candidate. Failing that, someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or any other clearly ineligible person should run for the office who would fail the natural born citizenship by one measure but guarantee the media would have to cover this issue and educate the citizenry about it.

  60. Leo,
    Thank you for another beauty.

    Forgive me for mangling a legal term, but I know you will get the gist. Our two party system, much of the media, and apparently more than half of the American public have set the Constitution aside under a groupthink “Force Majeure”. The reason for this is to accelerate the correction of perceived longstanding social “wrongs” that simply must be addressed at any cost, ranging from the election of Obama, and even the resultant appointment of Sotomayor. This effort by the true believers, combined with our decayed educational system, (to the point where I would wager that less than 5% of Americans have even the slightest idea of what Natural Born Citizen means) are fueling and perpetuating the current damage to the founding fathers vision. One can only hope that at some time these well intentioned “children” will get tired and go back to sleep so the “grown-ups” can step back in and undo the damage. The real question is, how long can this go on, and will there be anything left to save? Where is (or was) the tipping point?

  61. “This bill is intended to clarify the term and end uncertainty about the eligibility requirements to run for the Office of the Presidency. The definition of this term is an issue that has been debated in legal circles for years and has never been ruled on by the courts. Clarification is needed before this becomes a real issue. Congress should be the institution that defines this term, not the courts.”

    http://www.jcics.org/natural%20born%20summary%20(word).doc

    Wow, they knew this was coming and tried claim authority.

    [Ed. Exactly. The fix was in for a long time.]

  62. Leo I want to thank you for all of your hard work Thank you!!!!! Next I have been following you thru all of your trials and tribulations and was praying that you would be heard by the Supreme Court. I read in your most recent post that you might consider another run at this . I for one am begging you take this unsurper on. From the day the democrats pushed this man upon us I have been scared out of my wits!!!! Every single day we hear about another attack on our liberty and it’s down right scary!!! He’s appointing czars we have no say in . He wants to disband the CIA etc. etc. If there is anyone out there who can help Leo . Please step up to the plate and help him remove this unsurper . I am willing to do whatever I can to help !!! Thanks again Leo !!!!!

  63. The incredible amount of research which has gone into proving Soetoro’s inelligibllity stands on it’s own merit for us but matters little to them (The Media and the Federal Government). It is much more than just a failure to respond to our questions as it cuts to the core of our Nat’l problems and in cutting to the core we have discovered that the cards are stacked against us.., or so we thought.
    Let’s step outside the box for a moment and take a look at the reason for all the failures of the Judiciary to respond to reasonable requests.

    I have been working for recognition of Citizen Grand Juries since Dec. 0f 2008 as a means of redress for all of our meritorious questions and have hit the very same brick wall every one of the Lawyers have. Standing AND Jurisdiction. My State Superior Judges merely wave us off with “that’s not my jurisdiction” when, in fact, it is, but how do we force compliance?
    The answer can be found in a two part audio file on my web site—
    http://www.riseupforamerica.com (top of the page).
    I am requesting all to listen to those clips and understand the implications…
    From another researcher:

    Why don’t you contact Mr. Donofrio. Carl…He’s also aware of the change to corporate government. If he really wanted to, he could bring down the entire house of cards. Imagine if he worked with Rod. They would have a court to give them REMEDY! I wonder how mad he is at the system. What surprises me most, is these lawyers had no idea how the 25th amendment changed the presidency into a Chancellorship…I told you they don’t know anything about anything….Carl….if this can be dome, we will go down in history as the people who saved America! WOW!

    Yes, it is that profound and the reason I ask any and all help us. You want standing in the courts? You want to get back to a peaceful means of redress? Here’s how we’ll do it. So Leo, Mario, Steve, etc.., let’s put our heads together on this. We CAN do it and we MUST do it.
    Listen, understand and help us formulate the plan.

    Thank you

  64. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1133663

    Who May Be President?
    Constitutional Reinterpretation of Article II’s
    “Natural Born” Presidential Eligibility Clause

    I don’t agree with the conclusions, but this is well written and researched IMO.

    [Ed. It's garbage propganda:

    "Such an analysis finds that the traditional approach is inadequate, particularly in light of neglected aspects of English common law, the lack of congruency of the English legacy with the American political experiment, the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the history of congressional regulation in this area."

    The lack of congruency of the English legacy? Give me a damn break. The founding fathers would literally be challenging this idiot to a dual.]

  65. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Bho Boo,

    Please resubmit your comment with a proper link. The link you provided didn’t work. I hit delete by accident. Check your URL – I can’t recall now that it’s deleted and Ididn’t save it, but I believe it had a slash after www instead of a “.”

    Please resubmit. I’m trying to find the info you suggested about the divorce documents.

    I thought I responded to you and published my response, but now I can’t find it or the web page you made reference to as I close the browser. Doh! I think I will update my report based upon what you found.

  66. Here, find the Wolves of Legalism in plain view ….

    http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/84328/

    As citizens, we have unlimited access to the federal courts as a defendant, but not as a plaintiff.

    Feudal Federalism.

    That is the problem we face. Mature and well established, the false comfort it spreads among the states is like an opiate supplied by foreign interests; predators who today control the beltway and most all channels of access to federal power.

    The problem is not the federal government, but present Congress itself and the subculture that spawned it.

    I might add, that in this Obama era, we have an unprecedented number of leading and senior governmental positions filled by the children of a foreign national; children expressly raised for government service, including children foreign born and native born matriculated and accredited through foreign universities. This is not a xenophobic fear, just a contemporary fact that bears upon the present mass effort to “renormalize” America in lieu of “experts” having recently deemed our Constitution as “defective”.

    The framers never anticipated the explosion of transportation technology and prospective threats to national integrity posed thereby.

    The point is not xenophobic, but one of subculture and the distortions of subculture that infectively manifest as pathology.

    As my understanding of this grows, the more concerned I become.

  67. “Here is a rough draft of how I would accomplish the goal of setting forth the genuine legal question to stand or fall on its own merit in a complaint:”

    Thank you, Leo for providing a draft road map to wind its way through the legal morass.

    I pray you will choose to implement your road map personally.

    The country desperately needs you to do this . . .

  68. Leo,

    Justice Gray also wrote the Opinion in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S.94 (1884), which goes into great depth about citizenship:

    The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, 1; art. 1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power,
    should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 306.

    [Ed. Bingo, give that man a cigar. "Owing no allegiance to any foreign power..." Justice Gray is on point here in Elk... what happened in Wong Kim Ark?]

    This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

    [Ed. Again, on point.]

    And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. This view is confirmed by the second section of the fourteenth amendment, which provides that ‘representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.’ Slavery having been abolished, and the persons formerly held as slaves made citizens, this clauses fixing the apportionment of representatives has abrogated so much of the corresponding clause of the original constitution as counted only three-fifths of such persons. But Indians not taxed are still excluded from the count, for the reason that they are not citizens. Their absolute exclusion from the basis of representation, in which all other persons are now included, is wholly inconsistent with their being considered citizens. So the further provision of the second section for a propor- [112 U.S. 94, 103] tionate reduction of the basis of the representation of any state in which the right to vote for presidential electors, representatives in congress, or executive or judicial officers or members of the legislature of a state, is denied, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, to ‘any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States,’ cannot apply to a denial of the elective franchise to Indians not taxed, who form no part of the people entitled to representation.

  69. For all the laymen like me I recommend reading this Bastiat essay from 1850 for an explanation on how we have been plundered legally by our laws and molded like clay by our leaders!
    http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

    We must stay engaged in this fight for our souls.

  70. Seizethecarp Says:

    Fight The Smears:

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

    Is this truly a statement against interest, or an extremely clever piece of misdirection designed to protect Obama in some way that is not readily apparent?

    If Orly took Leo’s advice and asked for judicial notice of this statement, which arguments would Obama’s attorneys likely make to attempt to defeat attribution of this unsworn statement to Obama?

    Given the carefully crafted, lawyerly construction of the statement, it seems to me that this shockingly arrogant, in-your-face, seemingly damaging “admission” of apparent constitutional ineligibility could only have been made if it actually _furthered_ Obama’s interest in some way! I suspect that Obama’s attorneys have strategy for denial of attribution to Obama ready if necessary.

    [Ed The purpose was far more clever than you give it credit for being. The purpose is not as you say as there is no legal defense. Knowing this, Obama, in a stroke of genius published this admission below the big green SEXY COLB...which drove the entire debate of his eligibility as the paragraph below was hidden in plain site.

    For two years, as debate as to where he was born raged, nobody brought a serious challenge based upon that statement until October 27, 2008 when i brought my law suit to the NJ Appellate Division. It wasn't until after the election that my case was made public. That was the genius of the publication below the COLB. There is no legal explanation lying in wait as he's just not a natural born citizen.]

    But how could this statement further Obama’s interest?

    [Ed. It was an admission before the election that wasn't noticed until my law suit came along. If he hadn't have published it, then he and his supporters couldn't now say that it was before the nation during the election.]

    Obama’s legal team must have been confident that they could defend, deflect, or tie up in court any blood citizenship challenge to his eligibility, and subsequent events have born that out so far. Making Obama’s dual citizenship even more explicit in early 2008 by citing the 1948 BNA and stipulating that Obama was governed by it certainly inoculated him from any future charge that he was hiding that status. But this was already clear from his book narrative, so why was this statement necessary or beneficial?

    The statement would be beneficial to Obama if it not only locked in facts that he thought he could defend but more crucially if it deflected attention from discovery or analysis of facts that Obama could not so easily defend. Obama’s original “vital record” of his Honolulu birth is being withheld for reasons that can’t be defended. Is attention being deflected from that record by this statement? If so, that hasn’t worked out well for Obama.

    [Ed. It worked out great for him. It was genius. Give the man his due respect. You've got it backwards. That record, the COLB deflected attention from the British birth statement. ]

    The contrast between the too helpful 1948 BNA admission and the unhelpful vital record withholding is stark. Also, I still haven’t seen any contemporaneous evidence [Ed. Snip - I do not allow discussion which defames his parents and their marriage.]

  71. WVPatriot Says:

    Perhaps not relevant to this discussion… but it is relevant to show how serious the Founding Fathers were regarding Allegiance and Security…

    The following is from:
    William W. Hening, The Statutes at Large, Vol IX, page 281-283

    May 1777. Whereas allegiance and protection are reciprocal, and those who will not bear the former are not entitled to the benefits of the latter. Therefore Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all free born male inhabitants of this state, above the age of sixteen years, except imported servants during the time of their service, shall, on or before the tenth day of October next, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation before some one of the of the justices of the peace of the county, city, or borough where they shall respectively inhabit; and the said justices shall give a certificate thereof to every such person, and the said oath or affirmation shall be as followeth, viz, `I do swear or affirm that I renounce and refuse all allegiance to George the third, King of Great Britain, his heirs and successors, and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the commonwealth of Virginia, as a free and independent state, and that I will not, at any time, do, or cause to be done, any matter or thing that will be prejudicial or injurious to the freedom and independence thereof, as declared by congress; and also, that I will discover and make known to some one justice of the peace for the said state, all treasons or traiterous conspiracies which I now or hereafter shall know to be formed against this or any of the United States of America.’ And be it further enacted, That the justice of the peace before whom such or oath or affirmation shall be subscribed shall keep fair registers of the names of the persons so sworn… and shall on or before the first day of January . . . transmit in writing . . . to the clerk of court of the county a true list of the names.

  72. RE: “FCC officials threatened to yank broadcasting licenses……”

    Context:

    “A major TV talk-show host reported that he was ordered not to raise the birth certificate issue or risk losing his job. FCC officials threatened to yank broadcasting licenses, break up conglomerates, and make the enactment of the Fairness Doctrine “look mild” in comparison to other consequences.”

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/08/important-who-is-behind-quashing-birth.html

    Is this true or an unsubstantiated rumor – that the FCC threatened to cancel licenses ? If true, this is bigger than Watergate. If not it should stop.

  73. Re: PRevere “Yes, it is that profound and the reason I ask any and all help us. You want standing in the courts? You want to get back to a peaceful means of redress? Here’s how we’ll do it. So Leo, Mario, Steve, etc.., let’s put our heads together on this. We CAN do it and we MUST do it. Listen, understand and help us formulate the plan.”

    I have been thinking the same thing recently, especially after hearing the Rod Class and Joyce Rosenward’s interview. If all the lawyers who have submitted cases could team up with Rod’s and Joyce’s research (and any others who have research to contribute) for a class action suit representing all American citizens as plaintiffs perhaps we could force this issue that way. We certainly have been injured by the massive amount of our taxpayer dollars which has been stolen to pay off crony bankers, secret international players, political debts, et al. If/when the Fed Reserve is compelled by the judge to produce the list of entities which received (stole) OUR money, that would likely give a tremendous amount of fuel to our fire.

    I think those of us who have been keeping our ear to the ground can hear the distant clarion call of drums and flutes. The blood shed by our forefathers for this country cries out for us to take their place. Arise America! The patriots are on the march so let’s engage the enemy with every tool we have! Man, I’m fired up! Can’t wait for the 9/12 march on DC!!

  74. Don Leo, every time you think you’re finally out we’re going to pull you back in!!! We need you….your country needs you.

  75. Looking at selective service registration, pretty much everybody alien or not who lived here before age 26 and after age 18 has to register. But in terms of joining the volunteer military, only resident aliens and citizens can join. And in terms of evading the draft for duals and aliens:
    “ALIENS AND DUAL NATIONALS
    U.S. non-citizens and dual nationals are required by law to register with the Selective Service System.* Most are also liable for induction into the U.S. Armed Forces if there is a draft. They would also be eligible for any deferments, postponements, and exemptions available to all other registrants.
    However, some aliens and dual nationals would be exempt from induction into the military if there is a draft, depending on their country of origin and other factors. Some of these exemptions are shown below:
    * An alien who has lived in the U.S. for less than one year is exempt from induction.
    * A dual national whose other country of nationality has an agreement with the U.S. which specifically provides for an exemption is exempt from induction.
    * [Some countries have agreements with the U.S. which exempt an alien national who is a citizen of both that country and the U.S. from military service in the U.S. Armed Forces.] An alien who requests and is exempt under an agreement or bilateral treaty can never become a U.S. citizen, and may have trouble reentering the U.S. if he leaves.”

    Non-US citizens are very preferentially not drafted. Aliens and dual nationals are rated at 4C and Treaty Aliens are rated at 4T, waay down on the draft lottery (4F for example includes mental retardation).

    However, I am not finding anything backing up what an answerer on Yahoo wrote that you need to swear an oath–maybe they’re right, maybe they’re not, just haven’t found it yet:
    Can anchor babies be required to be drafted when they grow up?
    “When they turn 18, they are required to declare their citizenship. Back when we did have a draft, they could be drafted by our military as well as their home country’s military if they didn’t declare. Technically, the US does not allow dual citizenship. There really isn’t anything wrong with having dual citizenship except that if a person gets into some trouble overseas, the US Consulate won’t be able to help them as easily – or as willingly.”

    Also Britain has no problem with dual citizenships, even if you sign up for another citizenship you can still keep your British citizenship…however if you’re an American who tries to get another citizenship, they consider that revoking your US citizenship. They seem to turn a blind eye and frown upon yet do nothing about born dual citizenships, sort of “pre-naturalized” status. I’m still looking in to this.

    As far as the divorce certificate, I once screenshotted the first page of the Lolo Soetoro one, and it’s still on Citizen Wells http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/obamas-parents-divorce-decree-stanley-ann-soetoro-lolo-soetoro-child-custody-obama-indonesian-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-born-in-kenya/ . The Obama divorce was on plainstalkradio but hmm

    http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:zwHlnoWRIsIJ:www.plainsradio.com/obama1.html+http://www.plainsradio.com/obama1.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

  76. Once we do our due diligance and read the material about our history, we will, at the very least, understand that since 1933 we have been under a continuing string of executive orders designed to maintain executive control of our judiciary through the use of Emergency Powers.
    Joyce reminded me that when she was at law school the Professor told her, point blank, “we’re not here to learn the law, we’re here to learn how to work the system”. Scary but true. Now comes the throng of people wanting legal answers and there’s no one who can give them.
    We are at a point in our history that begs the question..,
    will we be a society of Constitutional Law or one of The Color of Law?
    Time to make that decision.

  77. Neologizer Says:

    21st POTUS Chester A. Arthur’s daddy was a Brit

    are you proposing we invalidate civil service employment since a non-eligible president signed the law?

    [Ed. No. The actions taken by Chester remain official despite the taint upon them.]

  78. Hate to be a stickler but we haven’t had a legal Congress seated since the 38th Congress and I have the documentation to prove it. It’s all a scam and for all intents and purposes has been since pre 1861.
    I want my Constitution BACK!!!

  79. The British Are Coming…………….The British Are Coming

    LISTEN, my children, and you shall hear
    Of the midnight ride of Leo Donofrio ,The new Paul Revere,
    On the eighteenth of November, in 2008;
    Hardly a man is now alive
    Who remembers that famous day and year.

    He said to his friend, “If the British march
    By land or sea from the town to-night,
    Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
    Of the North Church tower, as a signal light, —
    One, if by land, and two, if by DC;
    And I on the opposite shore will be,
    Ready to ride and spread the alarm
    Through every Middlesex village and farm,
    For the country-folk to be up and to arm.”

    Then he said “Good-night!” and with muffled oar
    Silently rowed from the Jersey shore,
    Just as the moon rose over the bay,
    Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
    The Somerset, British man-of-war;
    A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
    Across the moon like a prison-bar,
    And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
    By its own reflection in the tide.

    Meanwhile, his friend, through alley and street
    Wanders and watches with eager ears,
    Till in the silence around him he hears
    The muster of men at the BACK door,
    The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet…………………..

    …………………………………………………………………………..

    Well you all know how it ends, at least up until now.

    IF we refuse to learn from history then we are doomed

    to repeat it!

    No disrespect to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, 1860

    http://www.paulreverehouse.org/ride/poem.shtml

    Sometimes all we can do is a PAT on the back…….
    THANKS, LEO

    [Ed. That made me laugh. :) ]

  80. In response to today’s comment from ‘Neologizer” and your response to him/her stating that: ” . . . actions taken by Chester remain official . . .”:

    Does this mean that either:

    (1) If Obama were to be found to be ineligible during this four year term, and removed from office, that the destructive executive orders instituting government by fiat and legislation he has signed remain enforceible?

    Would his cabinet remain in office along with his 30+ czars?

    What about: Closing Gitmo and bringing terrorists to our shores, ad nauseam . . .?

    or,

    (2) If found to be ineligible, would he even be removed from office?

    [Ed. No. The Chester Arthur actions are too far in history to be reversed. There is a legal tenet as to this concept, but the exact phrase escapes me now. It's been discussed previously at this blog. Obama's official actions are assailable.]

  81. One point of interest, is that if you say have British citizenship and want to also get US citizenship, the British gov’t has no problem with that.
    If on the other hand you have US citizenship and seek out another citizenship, they (US State Dept) consider that revocation of US citizenship.

    [Ed. Wrong. Here is the official State Department policy since 1990:

    ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE

    As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

    Back in 1961 it wasn't quite that clear. It's possible, if Stanley Ann did register as a UK citizen (we don't know if she did or if she didn't at this point in time), the courts might have held that she gave up US citizenship, but the cases which decided this issue a few years later indicate that there had to be an intent to relinquish US citizenship and the swearing of an oath to another country was not enough by itself to accomplish that assent. It is evidence of assent. So, if in 1980, she claims to be a US citizen then I am comfortable that she was a US citizen regardless of any dual citizenship she might have held.]

    If you were born with the potential for either citizenship, the US State Dept. “discourages” dual citizenships but do pretty much nothing about it…it’s upon adulthood when the liabilities of citizenship come into play that a choice is at hand (did you notice how far down the draft lottery is for duals and aliens? hmm wonder why, it’s like bottom of the barrel for the draft). There’s no official “dual citizenship” card for the US, and this may have to do with CRA1866/14th, in that the first part of both of those precludes the latter ones (i.e. the first ruling out citizenship if having allegiance/being governed by another country). If it were crystal clear freely disclosed, the State Dept would just issue a dual citizenship acknowledgment like they do in Britain http://www.ukinusa.fco.gov.uk
    But as far as the NBC, Minor rules out the 14th as being NBC, so what else but jus soli jus sangunis (both parents) could it possibly be? That’s the last permutation available.
    Anyway, any dual citizen doesn’t seem to be in danger of US draft unless he naturalized, so in that the draft barely considers duals or aliens in the lottery, that’s again the state not exercising full political jurisdiction over those types. And US naturalization…precludes all other citizenships, so really you can be dual Canadian/US or British/US insofar as what Canada or Britain thinks, but not really US/Canadian or US/Britain in any official US sense–they don’t recognize it officially, but turn a blind eye to it until such time as allegiance is required.

    Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens of America
    Oath of Allegiance

    The oath of allegiance is:

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

    In some cases, USCIS allows the oath to be taken without the clauses:

    “. . .that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law. . .”

    If USCIS finds that you are unable to swear the oath using the words “on oath,” you may replace these words with “and solemnly affirm.” If USCIS finds that you are unable to use the words “so help me God” because of your religious training or beliefs, you are not required to say these words.

  82. If BHO is a DUEL citizen; than according to the draft board
    he is just above a 4F, and by the state dept. he is OK unless he get in trouble on foreign soil,
    but he is the Commander & Chief of the most powerful Military in the world.

    If someone finds out he painted houses in Austria I’m out of here!

  83. Thank you for that clarification. If she was a UK citizen in 1961, was that the pertinent date affecting BHO…moreso than whether she cumulatively kept her US citizenship by reassertion in 1981?

    Why then does say Canada and Britain offer legal certification of dual citizenship, but the US does not (in the opposite direction) reciprocate?

  84. from above… RE: “FCC officials threatened to yank broadcasting licenses……”

    If true Leo, wouldn’t loosing your FCC license over free speech have standing in court?

    [Ed. Certainly.]

  85. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    This is Off topic, but another patriot lawyer’s look at current national crisis

    “We stand where Hindenburg stood…”

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/we-stand-where-hindenburg-stood/

    An interview with Attorney Stephen Pidgeon

  86. My hat is off to you. It’s great to read this side.

  87. Feedback requested….revisions entertained.
    Civil Servant Accountability Form:

    Please be aware you are being recorded, as my servant you have already given me permission to record you and anything you say can and will be used against you, both in your private capacity and in your public capacity.
    Job Description: UPHOLD MY RIGHTS
    Title: Elected or Appointed Civil Servant
    All trials except for impeachment shall be by jury. You may be impeached.
    Duty: Uphold Constitution

    Have never advocated for the overthrow of the constitution.
    Have never taken any emoluments.
    My pay is only as required by the constitution paid out of the United States Treasury.
    I swear I do not receive payment from any state, county or city.
    I do not work for a Corporate State, City or County.
    Must have never written attainders.
    Must never have participated in a strike or assisted a strike against the Constitutional Form of Government.
    If retired from military, my oath for such service is in good standing, and I have not withdrawn my oath. Must swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
    Must never have failed to prevent or to aid in preventing any depravation of rights, under color of law, or any act of a conspiracy against the constitution.
    Must never have forced a deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, secured by the Constitution of the United States
    Must never have given any illegal alien aid & comfort.
    Not registered as an agent of a foreign government.

    If you refuse to initial this form, your refusal will be grounds to fire you on the spot. Initial here _____________

    You are summarily dismissed without benefit of any type. Your misconduct is a high misdemeanor and may be charged for treason. You have sworn not to violate the Constitution of the United States of America. TITLE 5§ 3331, Unless you can provide me with the witness against me, which as a public servant you can not do.
    You have struck against the Constitutional form of Government and may be arrested on the spot and held for 1 year and 1 day for each Wanton Dereliction of Duty.
    TITLE 18 § 1918 Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government. You have no immunity to me in a suite for damages or for jail time in either your private or public servant capacity.
    TITLE 42 § 12202 A State shall not be immune.
    TITLE 15 § 1122 No Immunity to state actors.
    TITLE 42 § 1983 You lack a victim, you lack a crime (No State codes, United States Codes, or Rules, You must use LAW) you lack a warrant, an indictment by a grand jury, and you lack jurisdiction, both subject matter and personam.
    You have committed the crime of summary judgment, false arrest, writ of attainder, conspiracy against rights and have committed abuse of power. You are a rogue agent acting above the law.

    WILL YOUR ELECTED OR APPOINTED PUBLIC SERVANT SIGN THIS?

  88. Gator's Mom Says:

    A bit OT, but you’re not going to believe this. Obama is going to deliver a national address directly to students from PreK-12 on what is for most the first day of school, Sept 8th at noon EST. Read about it here:

    http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html

    Talk about propaganda, indoctrination and Big Brotherism!! Can you name one world leader – other than Hitler – who addressed the country’s schoolchildren?? I read the learning materials linked on the site above and its all about Obama and what he wants of our children.

    I’m contacting my kids’ schools to find out if they’ve heard of this and if so, how much they will be participating. I will take them out of school for the address itself and the whole day if they plan on participating in any or all of the before, during and after speech activities suggested in the Government provided “classroom activities.”

  89. I found statements 1 and 2 below on Phillip Berg’s site, ObamaCrimes just a few minutes ago.

    I am absolutely shocked that Berg would post these statements.

    Does anyone have a clue as to what is going on here? Has his site been hacked or does he believe the statements?

    “There have also been major misstatements to the effect that for a “baby” to be “natural born” both parents must be U.S. citizens. The law is very clear:”

    1. “If a baby is born in the United States or its territories, the baby is “natural born” regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. [That is why so many pregnant women sneak across the borders from Mexico]”

    2. If both parents are U.S. citizens then the baby that is born any place in the world and returns to the U.S. through Immigration, that baby is considered “natural born.”

    [Ed. Wow. That's hilarious. Doesn't surprise me in the least.]

  90. The “Blake” interview, WND has the vid:

    Official Obama story continues to unravel
    Girlfriend places mother in Seattle in August 1961

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107889

  91. Starbeau: Berg IS the HACK! I’d like for him to show us all a piece of paper that an anchor baby is a US citizen when NO parents are US citizens! The baby in case #2 gets a consular report of being a “citizen” but not one as a “natural born citizen”.

    Berg has bats in his belfry!

  92. Leo,

    Please remove the comment I put up that I found on Bergs website. I had in mind that people that followed your blog would contact Berg in large numbers and get him straightened out.

    After I put it up it I began to worry that it could be used to confuse people that really don’t understand the issue and we have enough of those plus the O’bots that are intentionally attempting to confuse the issue.

    I sent Berg a complaint about what he posted and I hope that anyone that reads it before you delete it does the same.

    I would just as soon no one knows his site even exists if he is going to publish false information.

    [Ed. Don't worry about it. If you insist I remove your comment. Of course, I will. But I see no need. People are waking up. ]

  93. Starbeau. Thank you for that post. I certainly think I noticed a false-flag value in the Berg effort. Why else would he promote that erroneous concept?

    I had always curious about what Berg was really up to. I have questioning opinions. It seems to me that he and Orly Taitz are running campaigns that look like, intentionally or not, examples of complimentary disinformation.

    This is president who has already admitted he was born under the jurisdiction of the British government.

    Then that fact is not front and center, why?

  94. Jim Lavelle Says:

    PROVE that Obama was adopted — you can’t.

    [Ed. Legal divorce papers from the marriage between Lolo and Obama's mother state that the couple had two children. If he wasn't adopted the divorce papers would only mention one child.]

    PROVE that his mother was EVER in Kenya — you can’t.

    [Ed. Where did I say his mother was ever in Kenya? I never said that. It's irelevant to the arguments I have made. My analysis of the British birth issue is accurate whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not. Hell, he could have been born in the White House and it wouldn't make a difference. He admits he was a British citizen at birth, hence not natural born.]

    PROVE his mother gave up her citizenship — you can’t because she didn’t.

    [Ed. I've already stated in an update a few days ago that I believe his mother did NOT give up her US citizenship.]

    His refusal to release school and travel documents is required due to national security.

    He worked as a “researcher” for International Business Corporation, an international data collector and front for the CIA. Word is that is compensation included tuition and his work required travel under whatever type of passport the CIA provided.

    [Ed. So you have some knowledge that Obama worked for the CIA that the rest of us don't have? Are you saying that the CIA obtained foreign passports for Obama? Please, do tell us how you have that information. When you say "Word is..." whose word are you talking about?

    Also, you come in here slinging your guns above, "Prove this" you say, "Prove that" you say. Then you sling this wild speculation above with no proof at all? Double standard? Yes it is.

    Furthermore, what does any of the above have to do with his time before being an alleged CIA agent?]

    True patriots support their government.

    [Ed. I agree. They support their government when their government is acting legally. When their government is not acting legally, true patriots stand up and say so. The founding fathers didn't support their government, the Brits - are you saying they should have? ]

  95. The continuing search for legal arguments is not the essential vehicle of justice. What we seem to lack is the power to enforce Article II, § 1. The enemies of the Constitution lack the truth, but they do have a great deal of deadly force at their command.

    But the military is not cowed or intimidated by the FBI, ATF, FEMA, the National Guard, or state and local law enforcement.

    The questionable legitimacy of the chain of command could threaten to bring down the authority of the U.S. Armed Forces, if not addressed. In combat, the military is seriously affected by this problem, and combat soldiers are vitally concerned about its resolution. The issue needs to be packaged and sold to the military, sworn “to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

    I have long felt that deliverance from the usurpation would come from the military.

    [Ed. It has the potential to erode the chain of command. I pray it doesn't.]

  96. So, we are to believe that the following was an honest mistake?

    “So, since Obama was a citizen of Kenya on January 1, 1983, he was also a Commonwealth Citizen and he was not an alien in the United Kingdom from that date. Had Obama’s citizenship expired on August 4, 1982 – as was incorrectly stated by Factcheck.org – then the British Nationality Act of 1981 (which didn’t go into effect until January 1, 1983) would not have governed Obama’s status.”

    A very convenient mistake.

  97. Leo, COULD YOU PLEASE get with Orly and Kreep so that they can have a case that will BLOW ustge Carter into our corner, THIS may be the only chance we get, and it is slim, but Carter is willing to hear it, so far…… She truly needs your fine touch to the whole case and so does Kreep, and we may never have another opportunity, PLUS, she needs protectiona dnlots of it,, she needs to have all the files locked up and not on public display or open to any/everyone.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109242

    Arguments planned Jan. 11 for challenge to Obama

    Posted: September 08, 2009
    4:42 pm Eastern

    By Jerome R. Corsi
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    Is this the footprint of baby Barack Obama?

    A California judge today tentatively scheduled a trial for Jan. 26, 2010, for a case that challenges Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president based on questions over his qualifications under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

    If the case actually goes to arguments before U.S. District Judge David Carter, it will be the first time the merits of the dispute have been argued in open court, according to one of the attorneys working on the issue.

    In a highly anticipated hearing today before Carter, several motions were heard, including a resolution to long-standing questions about whether attorney Orly Taitz properly served notice on the defendants, which she had.

    In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent plaintiffs Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party’s chairman, also were restored to the case.

    But the judge did not immediately rule on Taitz’ motion to be granted discovery – that is the right to see the president’s still-concealed records. Nor did Carter rule immediately on a motion to dismiss the case, submitted by the U.S. government, following discussion over Taitz’ challenge to the work of a magistrate in the case.

    The judge did comment that if there are legitimate constitutional questions regarding Obama’s eligibility, they need to be addressed and resolved.

    Carter ordered a hearing Oct. 5 on the motion to dismiss and ordered arguments submitted on the issue of discovery.

    If the case survives that challenge, a pretrial hearing has been scheduled for Jan. 11 and the trial for two weeks later.

    The case would be the first time, according to Kreep, that the actual merits of the dispute will have been heard in open court. A multitude of such disputes have been rejected out of hand by various state and federal courts. Even the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly has rejected urgent appeals to hear the evidence.

    The suit alleges Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia and “possibly still citizen of Kenya, usurping the position of the president of the United States of America and the commander-in-chief.”

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109242

  98. borderraven Says:

    Usama bin Laden is dead, it happened on Obama’s watch.
    Wait for him and the Dems to take credit.

  99. Robert Laity Says:

    Obama is encumbered from being POTUS for OTHER reasons besides his dual ccitizenship,if,in arguendo,he actually was born in Hawaii.

    Obama still stands accused of TREASON and Electoral fraud at this time:

    http://www.americangrandjury.org/public/

    See 18USC,Part 1.Chapter 115,Sec.2381

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: