The Dual Cititzen POTUS Disqualification Issue Stands Alone.
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.