John McCain: Citizen of Panama At Birth

[UPDATED 9:32 AM.  See red ink below.]

I’m sick of the partisan hijacking of the eligibility issue.  I want people to know that my blog is not partisan.  From the start, when I brought my law suit against the NJ Secretary of State, I attempted to have her remove the names of both Obama and McCain from the ballots.  Neither is a natural born citizen and neither should be President.

Recently, I was on the air with a certain right wing blogger who alleged that persons born abroad could be POTUS.  Unfortunately, I wasn’t connected to the program until after this bogus comment was made and it wasn’t brought to my attention until yesterday.  It was obviously an attempt to sanitize McCain’s fraudulent eligibility.  I will address it now.

According to the birth certificate and COLB of John McCain, McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon, Panama.  While the BC states at the top that it is from the “Canal Zone”, the document also states that McCain was born in Colon Hospital, city of Colon.  The city of Colon and the hospital were not in the Canal Zone.

The common story you hear is that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, but these documents posted online do not testify to that.  Furthermore, there is no official document that has ever surfaced which states that McCain was born in the Canal Zone.

There is a birth announcement in the Panama American newspaper which states that McCain was born in the “submarine base hospital”.  I don’t know what the submarine base hospital is.

Additionally, I am not aware of any complaints by John McCain claiming that the documents online – his BC and COLB – are fraudulent.

Regardless, even if we analyze the issue by assuming McCain was born in the Canal Zone, Panama law states that McCain was a citizen of Panama at birth.

Articles 8 and 9 of the Constitution of Panama state that all persons born in the “national territory” of  Panama are citizens of Panama.  Panama has always recognized the canal zone as Panama territory and has always considered those born in the Canal zone or at the Coco Solo base to be citizens of Panama.  So McCain was definitely a citizen of Panama at birth.

According to Article 13 of the Panama Constitution, a person born in Panama does not lose his citizenship unless he explicitly or tacitly renounces it.  McCain has never, as far as I know, acknowledged his Panama citizenship so I doubt that he has ever explicitly renounced the same.

Tacit renunciation is allowed and that means an implied renunciation will be recognized by Panama and citizenship is generally lost when a person enters the service of another nation or becomes a citizen of another nation.  But tacit renunciation could only be accomplished by a person who was aware of the issue.  As a child, McCain could not have made an implied renunciation of his Panamanian citizenship – certainly not as a new born infant.

The Panama Constitution unequivocally made John McCain a citizen of Panama at birth.  If one is going to argue that Obama is not eligible to be President because he was British at birth – even if born in Hawaii – then we certainly must also argue that McCain, who was Panamanian at birth and who was born in national territory of Panama – is not eligible to be President either.

Anti Obama eligibility bloggers who refuse to accept the true legal analysis of McCain’s failure to qualify as a natural born citizen are setting themselves and the entire eligibility movement up for failure.  By not acknowledging McCain’s ineligibility, you provide ammunition for the left to paint all efforts to remove Obama as partisan politics.

I am not interested in partisan politics.  I am interested in the preservation of the Constitution.  Despite being a war hero, John McCain should have been interested in the preservation of the Constitution as well.  But he was more interested in his own career and now he’s directly responsible for the Constitutional hell we find ourselves in because – as the Republican candidate for POTUS, – he alone would have undeniable standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility in a quo warranto action.

But due to McCain having been born abroad, he is certainly not going to come forward and attempt to have Obama removed from office.  In fact, McCain has supported Obama’s eligibility.  How very convenient.

Beware of bloggers who are not lawyers giving you bogus partisan interpretations of what the law is and analyzing it for you as if they had a law license and had taken a bar exam to prove their skills.  They are charlatans trying to spin you.  And they are everywhere, on the left and the right.

About these ads

166 Responses to “John McCain: Citizen of Panama At Birth”

  1. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    Leo,

    Hear! Hear!

    I agree totally with this post!

  2. I totally agree with your conclusion that McCain is probably not a NBC and his reasons for not challenging Obama; however, I really dislike this copy of his BC. There have been claims that it is forged as well. The typeface for several occurances of the number “6″ on the form does not match and the surrounding pixelation is different . I find that to be troublesome for this document.

    While I don’t think it changes his eligibility problems, I’m not sure this document proves the point.

    I’m beginning to think there isn’t an original document out there anywhere for any of our government officials.

    [Ed. McCain has never disputed the information on this BC. But it does not even matter. The US State Department has held that persons born on military bases abroad do not become US citizens based upon such birth. Panama recognized the entire PCZ as Panama territory and EVERYONE born there is a Panama citizen.]

  3. Yesterday I got into an argument with my sister of the definition of NBC and Orly Taitz’s lawsuits against Obama. Just for the heck of it I am going to share my sister’s opinion of NBC. She works on the East Coast. She pretty much sums up the thinking of many people who will wake up one day with no liberty left whatsoever – and maybe not even notice then!

    ________________________________ from conversation thread after the UCONN research on NBC:

    Don’t you think it is a bit much to assume any of KNOW what the founding fathers intended?

    Today you are naturally born if your parents are US citizens. In a global society, it simply does not matter where your parents happened to be at the moment of your birth. The Founding Fathers did not live in a global society and most likely couldn’t even imagine our lives and lifestyles today. I personally do not see those old men as omniscient; they made plenty of mistakes. The constitution is and always has been a work in progress. If it were not, you and I would not even have the right to vote! [Ed comment: We are both women and didn't have initial rights to vote]

    What does the extreme Right think it is going to accomplish by beating this drum over and over? Surely by now you must see that the majority of people do not see this as an issue? It wasn’t even taken seriously during the campaign. That the more noise the Right makes about it, the less attention is paid? This starting to sound like “Is Elvis really dead?” “Was there a single gunman”” and/or “Did Jackie sleep with Bobbie?” National Enquirer stuff.

    What is the point? To appeal to the Supreme Court to invalidate the election? Do you really, honestly think that the Supreme Court would remove a sitting president, let alone the first black man elected in US history? No way. Such an action would cause such political and social upheaval – probably violence too – that the economy would get even worse. Maybe collapse into a deep depression. The risks are too great, no matter what argument is brought forward. Politics, you must remember, is what is practical, not about what may be technically correct.

    There are so many more important issues to talk about than this. Immigration. Health care. Tax reform. Education. The list goes on & on.

    Persisting with this to damage Obama I think only benefits Hillary. Beware what you wish for!

  4. I, too, second (third?) that emotion.

    Mr. Jindal of Louisiana, what say you?

    Publius

  5. Leo, the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was passed by the First Congress whose membres contained 17 signers of the Constitution, and which was signed into law by president George Washington, deemed children born abroad to US citizens to be natural born citizens. This law was repealed in 1795. No other statue has used the term natural born citizen. The Supreme Court is so far silent on these circumstances of birth with regard to NBC.

    Isn’t is possible, considering the proximity in time of the NA1790 and the Constitution’s eligibility requirements, that birth abroad to US citizens was considered NBC by the framers? Or, perhaps, the repeal of the Act in 1795 is evidence thaty they corrected their earlier mistake, which defined NBC too broadly. In either case, I find the NA1790 too large to ignore with regard to birth abroad to US citizens.

    I agree that there is and should be doubt until SCOTUS or an Amendment settles the issue of all the permutations of circumstances of a person’s birth with regard to NBC.

    [Ed. Agreed.]

  6. Hello Leo,
    I read Leo Donofrio and I say “Hooray, Leo! One of the Good Guys!”
    I read Mario Apuzzo and I say “Hooray, Mario! One of the Good Guys!”
    I think that both of you will ultimately be welcomed by the Founding Fathers as “True and Faithful Patriots of the Constitution”.

    As a layman, I get confused much more easily than you guys who are trained in the law. So, please help me, and others.

    In Mario’s blog, he has a recent article: “Why For McCain But Not For Obama?” Located here: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

    I interpret the title as follows: Why (is Apuzzo) for McCain’s (NBC status), but not for Obama’s (NBC status)?

    Here is the main paragraph:

    “The question then is what other avenue exists for McCain to be declared an Article II “natural born Citizen.” According to Vattel, being physically born out of the country did not necessarily mean that one was not born “in the country.” E. Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature. Sec. 215-217. Vattel explained that if a child was born “in the armies of the state,” that child was “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” Vattel, Sec. 217. Since this child would have been born in the foreign “armies of the state,” he would normally not be granted citizenship in the country in which he was physically born. Additionally, the country on whose soil the child might be born might adhere to a jus sanguinis system of conferring citizenship (meaning that born on its soil alone would not confer citizenship and therefore allegiance and loyalty on the child). Being born under those conditions, this child would therefore be born with sole allegiance to the country of his parents and would qualify as a “natural born citizen” of that country. Hence, it can be argued that McCain is a “natural born Citizen” under federal common law that emanated from the law of nations which had its source in natural law, as described by Vattel and all of which the Framers accepted as our federal common law during the Founding. In such case, “natural born Citizen” status is not created by Congress but rather by law that already existed among civilized nations and was, indeed, jus gentium. It is this law (natural law that became the law of nations and which became U.S. federal common law) from which the Founders extracted the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” Reliance on common law to make McCain was also utilized by Tribe and Olson in drafting their position paper which is the basis of Senate Resolution 511. See also Chin, “Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President” (also recognizes common law citizenship that existed during the Founding). This argument is McCain’s best chance for “natural born Citizen” status.”

    I thought I’ve seen in some other atricles by Mario that he supports NBC status for McCain. However, I could not find those references this morning. He does not directly state that he thinks that McCain is NBC in this article, merely that “This argument is McCain’s best chance” for NBC status.

    Can you help resolve the difference between your stance and Apuzzo’s?

    Thanks and best regards, Jim A

    Aside, off the topic: I note that both Leo and Mario are from NJ. As I am as well (by mere accident of birth – never to return permanently). One of my long-standing jokes is that should I ever become famous, a sign will be erected: East Orange, NJ BIRTHPLACE of JimA

    [Ed. The problem is that McCain was born as a dual citizen of the US (by statute) and Panama (by the Panama Constitution). The only way McCain could be eligible is if we are willing to say that persons born with dual citizenship can be POTUS. I do not believe this is possible or should be allowed. McCain was a Panama citizen at birth but he has failed to make that clear and he has hurt this nation for it.]

  7. Ed. wrote:

    McCain has never disputed the information on this BC.

    That doesn’t mean the document is legit. It would be an argument from silence. The case which presented the document (Hollander v. McCain) was dismissed, so McCain was never in the position to have to answer to the claims and to comment on the BC.

    [Ed. McCain knows he was a Panama citizen at birth. he manged to avoid having to answer the question.]

  8. Leo –

    The facts on the ground in Panama in 1936 are these:

    The ‘Act of August 4, 1937’ (Pub.L. 75-242, 50 Stat. 558) reflects the only two (2) maternity options available to Americans on the Canal Zone: namely, (a) the Canal Zone (Gorgas Hospital, Balboa Heights) and (b) the Republic of Panama (Colón Hospital, Colón).

    The medical records maintained by the Panama Canal Health Department were second-to-none in 1936. And so, the ‘missing sequential record’ that the Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs dismissed as a ‘bureaucratic snafu,’ turns out to be a confirmation both McCain’s BC and COLB we have seen are correct (which show that his parents were ACTUALLY LIVING in Colón, and ‘off the Canal Zone!’)

    Why? Because, the Canal Zone Health Department only kept vital records for the military on those troops ‘distributed on military reservations,’ that is, military personnel who were part of the population of the Canal Zone. [“Malaria in Panama” (1936), prepared by James Stevens Simmons, p. 86; — (the entire report is digitized)].

    Also, everyone in the Canal Zone reading the English-language Panama-American newspaper for Monday, August 31, 1936, knew the ‘Submarine Base Hospital’ was the oceanfront Colón Hospital, because that is where the sailors went for treatment!

    [Ed. Thank you for this analysis. ]

  9. End Road Work Says:

    Obama is a lawyer AND a charlatan protected by a bodyguard of liars – oops, I mean lawyers.

    Nixon was a lawyer and so was Clinton.

    Asking people to trust lawyers’ interpretation of the law because they are lawyers is not good advice.

    [Ed. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say to trust all lawyers. I made the important point that people who aren't lawyers are not qualified to issue legal advice and statutory interpretation is often terrible when done by lay persons, especially partisan ones.]

  10. bob strauss Says:

    If our Constitutional government, was working as designed, what is the proper way to deal with the crisis of Obama’s eligibility? Where, does the Constitution, direct us, to begin, to rectify, the unconstitutional executive officer issue? What does the Constitution say, should be done, to fix the problem, and why isn’t it happening?

    I am starting to think the Constitution doesn’t matter anymore, and something has overcome our elected “oath takers” in the District of Criminals.

    [Ed. More on this to come... but see my prior legal brief on Quo Warranto...]

  11. Have you already posted a critique of the Ted Olsen and Laurence Tribe joint letter regarding McCain’s eligibility?

    If not, that might be an interesting analysis.

    Here is a link to their http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_olson_041708.pdf

  12. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    In Article 3 of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1903 it says:

    The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone mentioned and described in Article 2 of this agreement and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said Article 2 which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority.

    http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/pancantreaty.htm

    While it includes the “as if” language, which to my mind means that the US had no sovereignty over the PCZ and were only acting “as if”, it also mentions the “entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power or authority”.

    I don’t think that Panama excluded sovereignty over the PCZ, only the “excercise”. If they had excluded sovereignty, the PCZ would have been a true no-man’s-land, because the US were only acting “as if” they had sovereignty.

    But in the case against McCain the defendant used article 3 to argue that the PCZ was in fact “sovereign US territory” making McCain NBC (p. 4 sq.):
    http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Hollander-Reply-6-5-08.pdf

    I think that’s absurd!

    [Ed. The Constitution of Panama grants citizenship to anyone born in the canal zone as that is part of the "national territory" of Panama. The "as if" language is important because it recognizes that the PCZ is part of Panama, but it's treated "as if" it isn't for the purposes of the US doing its thing there. The Constitution grants citizenship to anyone born in "national territtory" - national territory included the PCZ because that was still part of Panama even if it was under the jurisdiction of the US at the time.

    Furthermore, Panama has ALWAYS held that persons born in the PCZ are Panama citizens. McCain was a citizen of Panama at birth.]

  13. MEA CULPA. I missed the footnote 2 on page 5 of the above-mentioned “Hollander-Reply-6-5-08.pdf”:

    The fanciful speculation offered by Plaintiff (at 2) that it is “reasonable to assume that [Senator McCain] was born in the city of Colón in the Republic of Panama” is a canard, debunked even within the mists of the blogosphere from whence Plaintiff’s outlandish theories are derived. See Michael Dobbs, The Fact Checker: John McCain’s Birthplace, WashingtonPost.com, May 20, 2008, at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html (last visited June 3, 2008). Dobbs set out to “fact check” the allegation, published on the Newsbusters.com blog in February 2008, that “John McCain . . . COULD NOT have been born in Coco Solo Hospital and probably wasn’t born in the Canal Zone at all.” Id. After examining Senator McCain’s birth certificate and exhaustively searching the archives of the Coco Solo Naval Air Station, Dobbs concluded that “there is no foundation for the rumors that have surfaced on the Internet that John McCain was born in the Panamanian city of Colon, rather than inside the U.S.-administered Panama Canal Zone.” Dobbs awarded the NewsBusters.com story four Pinocchios, the Fact Checker’s designation for “a whopper.” Id.

    I don’t think it’s very professional to quote websites in such a context. But doesn’t this show that the defendant (i.e. McCain) denied the claims of birth in Panama? They don’t mention the BC directly, but they say that these claims are only “fanciful speculation”, a “canard”, “debunked”, “outlandish theories” etc.

    [Ed. That doesn't debunk anything. But it really doesn't matter, the PCZ was Panama territory... and Panama has always granted persons bonr there to be citizens. McCain was a dual citizen at birth.]

  14. obama does not qualify as an amendment 14 citizen since the phrase “subject to the jurisdicton of” means complete jurisdiction and not shared with great britain – am 14 really supports the NBC requirement of two us citizens as parents and born on us soil – as an old marine I support the constitution – if you do not agree with it then amend it – or leave the country

  15. Bob wrote:

    Also, everyone in the Canal Zone reading the English-language Panama-American newspaper for Monday, August 31, 1936, knew the ‘Submarine Base Hospital’ was the oceanfront Colón Hospital, because that is where the sailors went for treatment!

    Do you have a source/sources as evidence for (a) this claim that “everyone knew” that the submarine base hospital was the same hospital as the oceanfront Colón Hospital, and (b) for the alleged fact itself, that it was one and the same hospital, meaning that there was no “submarine base hospital” in Coco Solo?

  16. doesn’t Congress resolution
    supercede and clarify the eligibility requirement in regard
    to McCain’s particulars surrounding his birth event?

    [Ed. Senate resolution 511 has as much legal authority as the comic section from the Sunday news. Nada. It's nothing more than an opinion dressed up in a bow made to look like a law, but it's not a law in any way shape or form. It's nothing.]

  17. You might think Mitt Romney would be interested in all this, and I tried to query him a couple of times at his website. My queries were not even posted, much less replied to. Some have questioned Mitt’s birthplace, too, but I think it was his father, George (who also ran for prez?) who was born in Mexico.

    Anyway, Mitt might be president now if he had challenged McCain’s eligibility during the primary season, as he should have.

  18. Mc Cain and BHO both were relying on this strategy. It seems to have paid off for BHO. So far.

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

    from the rebekka bonner paper

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

    II. Justiciability of the Meaning of “Natural Born”
    For purely strategic reasons relating to the nature of electoral contests, is not
    likely that the meaning of Article II’s “natural born” presidential eligibility clause will
    ever be elaborated by our Supreme Court. Why is this so?
    As a hypothetical example, consider what would have happened, had George
    Romney been elected to the presidency in 1964. Once Romney had won office, would the
    newly elected President or his Republican Party have moved to amend the Constitution,
    or to delete or retrospectively redefine the “natural born” clause? Given the large
    supermajorities needed to amend the Constitution, and given the political perils of
    intimating that the party’s successful presidential candidate had failed to meet the
    Constitution’s threshold eligibility requirements, neither of approach would have been
    politically prudent. Rather, it is much more likely that the President and his party simply
    would have adopted a “wait-and-see” strategy, doing nothing unless or until someone
    challenged the Romney presidency in court.
    But while unlikely, a suit challenging the “natural born”-ness of a contender is
    certainly possible. Indeed, judicial review of the candidate’s constitutional fitness for
    holding presidential office would survive both political question doctrine and established
    standing requirements necessary for justiciability of this hypothetical claim.

  19. Thank yuou, Leo.

    After your reply to my question above, I’ve re-read the paragraph from Apuzzo. He is relying on unconfirmed conditions to draw his conslusion.

    Here is the important area (emphasis added-CAPS): “Since this child would have been born in the foreign “armies of the state,” he would NORMALLY not be granted citizenship in the country in which he was physically born. Additionally, the country on whose soil the child might be born MIGHT adhere to a jus sanguinis system of conferring citizenship (meaning that born on its soil alone would not confer citizenship and therefore allegiance and loyalty on the child). Being born UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS, this child would therefore be born with sole allegiance to the country of his parents and would qualify as a “natural born citizen” of that country.”

    So, Apuzzo uses ‘normally’, ‘might’ and ‘under those conditions’ to qualify his conclusion. However, you have studied the Panama Constitution and show that those conditions do not exist in Panama concerning the status of John McCain.

    Therefore, McCain is not NBC for exactly the same reason that Obama is not NBC – dual citizenship.

    Thank you again.

  20. Leo,

    Excellent!
    FYI: my friend also born in Panama same year as McCain and on the base. Her point is that everyone in her generation knew McCain was not POTUS.
    She wanted me to send a reminder on Ron Paul that it has been his crusade since his entry in Congress to take back the power of the FED and to keep out ill policies and regs in our health care. She understands your disappointment, but look at what he is doing. Don’t quit.

    [Ed. Thanks for posting this. It's recently come to my attention that those born in the PCZ have always been considered Panama citizens and this is not some esoteric fact as your friend has stated. This election was disgusting. McCain knew he wasn't really eligible.]

  21. Leo

    Inplace of FED it is:
    To take back Federal Reserve Bank powers.

  22. PCZ was considered unincorporated US territory. Children born there were citizens by statute. You can not be a NBC by statute.

    I know trusting Wikipedia is iffy but this seems to make sense.

    ***
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone
    ***
    Citizenship

    Although the Panama Canal Zone was legally an unincorporated U.S. territory until the implementation of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1979, questions arose almost from its inception as to whether the Zone was considered part of the United States for constitutional purposes, or, in the phrase of the day, whether the Constitution followed the flag. In 1901 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Downes v. Bidwell that unincorporated territories are not the United States.[4] On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated: “While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country.”[5] Accordingly, it was held in 1905 in Rasmussen v. United States that the full constitution only applies for incorporated territories of the United States.[6] Until the rulings in these so-called “Insular Cases”, children born of two U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone had been subject to the Naturalization Act of 1795, which granted statutory U.S. citizenship at birth. With the ruling of 1905 persons born in the Canal Zone only became U.S. nationals, not citizens.[7] This no man’s land with regard to U.S. citizenship was perpetuated until Congress passed legislation in 1937, which corrected this deficiency. The law is now codified under title 8 section 1403.[8] It not only grants statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904, with at least one U.S. citizen parent, but also did so retroactively for all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone before the law’s enactment.[9]

    [Ed. Panama is correct - the PCZ was always Panama national territory...]

  23. Thanks Leo for putting this on your blog to highlight. Everyone is focusing on Obama’s ineligibility when you had both McCain, Obama and another person on the ballot not meet the Constitutional Requirements to be President under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

    Just the lone fact that both McCain and Obama were allowed to run by both parties shows that these parties are CORRUPT from the floor up and we need to heed the advice of Presidet John Quincy Adams and Samuel Adams and get rid of everyone.

    [Ed. Exactly. The other candidate was Roger Calero, born in Nicaragua in slot C on my ballot next to John McCain, born in Panama and Slot A, Obama. Nice ballot NJ. real nice. So very Constitutional. Not.]

  24. So from the USA end: “solely jus soli” does not grant US citizenship, but from the Panama end it does?

    [Ed. Panama Constitution doesn't have "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" included in the the citizenship by Jus Soli provision. The laws are different. It's not a question of jus soli, it's a question of how each nation enacted the laws in question. Our 14th amendment is requires more than their Article 8 and 9.

    Furthermore, as to POTUS eligibility, it's not the citizenship of OBama I am questioning, it's whther or not his US citizenship was "natural born." There is a vast difference between whether one is a citizen and whether one is natural born. The SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark indicated that the native born son of an alien is NOT natural born.]

    Allegiance aka jurisdiction is the delimiter insofar as US citizenship. In addition the US has no official recognition of dual citizenship, but “tolerates” it. Anchor babies are nowhere legally defined as US citizens. This is all consistent with the oath of naturalization which requires one to revoke all other allegiances to become a US citizen, not just some.

    Strictly in the eyes of the unchallenged CRA1866 Obama is not even a US citizen at all, rather he would be a citizen of whichever country did not legally mind polygamous allegiances. Great Britain officially recognizes dual citizenship and even grants a certificate, so legally speaking impure allegiance does not impair citizenship with the UK, contrary to the USA’s laws.

    Culturally speaking, most people believe the jus soli component suffices alone for citizenship, and that there exists an official recognition of plural citizenships in the USA–but that is not the case.

    But if McCain was born whilst his parents were in the service of the Armies of the USA, didn’t that still support his NBCness? [Ed. No, because he was a dual citizen and therefore at birth - according to the US state department - he owed allegiance to Panama.]

  25. Attorney Puzo provides the following:

    “Vattel explained that if a child was born “in the armies of the state,” that child was “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” Vattel, Sec. 217. Since this child would have been born in the foreign “armies of the state,” he would normally not be granted citizenship in the country in which he was physically born.”

    This is a strong an argument that McCain is a citizen of the U.S. as you can get. I have no doubt, but that McCain is a citizen of the U.S.

    However none of this has any bearing on whether McCain is a Natural Born Citizen as that term is used in the U.S. Constitution. To state that one is “reputed” born in the united states for purposes of establishing citizenship under Vattel’s calculus is simply not the same as saying one was “born” in the united states for purposes of establishing that one is an A2C1S5 natural born citizen. To my mind, Mr. McCain is more or less in the same world of hurt as Mr. Obama when it comes to POTUS eligibility–it’s a non-starter.

    FWIW, I am beginning think that those who are working at this point to leave Mr. McCain a loose excuse are not really concerned per se about Mr. McCain’s eligibility/non-eligibility. I’m concerned that they are enaged in a partisan effort to provide a loophole for Mr. Jindal of Lousiana to pass through. Remember, Mr. Jindal is clearly a 14th Amendment citizen according to the holding in Wonk Kim Ark (child born domestically to permanent resident aliens is a U.S. citizen), as both of Jindal’s parents were permanent residents of the U.S. at the time he was born, on their way to citizenship. Mr. Obama’s father, by contrast, was only a temporary resident of the U.S. when the child was born (he held a student visa).

  26. What a magnificent moment of clarity. You’ve said it all before, but never so well.

    This post perfectly illuminates a central cardinal issue.

    “Which shall be more important, our political party or our Constitution?”

    Which begs the personal, moral question:

    “Are you citizen or a syndicalist?”

    The DNC and RNC, IMHO, are little better than syndicates. Devotion to either is a betrayal of the national interest and the Constitution itself.

    [Ed. Exactly. ]

  27. http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.13.0.pdf

    As expected, Rhodes case dismissed.

    [Ed. If you read the Judge's order, he correctly points out that no FACTS were alleged to support the claim, only innuendo. This is EXACTLY the reason i said the pleadings were insufficient - nowhere in the pleading did it state the FACT that Obama was British at birth and that he has admitted this fact. It's clear from the very first paragraph that the Judge only conisdered Obama's BC and place of birth... he never discussed the dual citizen issue because it was NEVER raised:

    Plaintiff’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has become known as “the birther movement.” She maintains that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and, therefore, he is not eligible to be President of the United States.

    You see, that's the only point the Judge mentions and he thoroughly destroys her on this point. Nowhere is the FACT put before the court that Obama was a dual citizne at birth and therefore not a natural born citizen.

    Complete analysis is forthcoming. The news isn't all bad though. Getting these faulty defective issues out of the way is going to help prepare a thoroughly plead law suit in the right venue at some point in time. More to follow. I do not believe that military people have the proper standing. Originally, I thought they might but after reviewing the quo warranto statute I realized they didn't and have not advocated their involvement. ]

  28. whistleblower Says:

    “Beware of bloggers who are not lawyers giving you bogus partisan interpretations of what the law is and analyzing it”.

    Many bloggers, who are not lawyers, are providing more accurate, and supported, legal analysis than are the partisan lawyers.

    The statement should be “Beware of bloggers who are, and are not, lawyers giving you…”

    Vince Treacy and Mike Appleton, over at Prof. Jonathan Turley’s blog are perfect examples of lawyers giving unsupported, inaccurate interpretations of the law.

  29. Didn’t Panama exclude from their citizenship children born of diplomats or foreign armies?
    Otherwise, if McCain was a citizen by Panama’s recognition, then by CRA1866 being born subject to a foreign power, he was not a US citizen at all?

    [Ed. He's a US citizen by a certain US statute... not the 14th Amendment. No such exclusion as mentioned above appears to exist in Panama law. If you think a law does exist, please cite the law. McCain was NEVER eligible to be POTUS.]

  30. Judy Buffalohead Says:

    Leo, thanks for all you’ve done and are doing on this issue. Will you please give us a “read” on the argumnets being made by the defense in Orly Taitz’s case before Judge Carter. i.e.

    “. . .say not even the U.S. Supreme Court has any input into the question at this point, and such cases should be barred from the courts.

    “The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office,” said a brief filed by government lawyers in a California lawsuit over Obama’s eligibility under the Constitution’s demand for a “natural born citizen” in the White House.

    That’s because, the brief states, “the examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate’s eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress.”

    THANK YOU !!

    [Ed. I should have a thorough analysis of Orly's case before Judge Carter and the dismissal in the Rhodes case by tomorrow.]

  31. Joe Loleczek Says:

    So…….
    I think we all agree that Leo has nailed the NBC issue. No question.
    And I think we all know (feel?) that nothing is going to be done about it. Even if something were done it would take 2 or 3 years to accomplish.

    [Ed. Not necessarily. There are one or two lines of judicial attack still available -- actually the ones still available are the only genuine ones available. Quo Warranto.]

    My real question – What can we do to assure that Leo’s information will not allow another four years of this tragedy.

    What is the thinking about 2012?
    Will Obama have to go through a vetting process again by filing with the SOS of every state?
    Will the fact that he is already in office trump that requirement?

  32. Leo,

    Yet another EXCELLENT and much needed post. Your strong, and legal, position re McCain is so timely, especially for those who are unaware of your suit raising this very point filed with SCOTUS in the ancient past of October 2008. This, reinforces the NON-partisan nature of the issue which you have long advocated. Kudos!

    I also want to commend you for your ever increasing calm & cool reply/rebuttal to challengers. I have seen that the hotter & more visible this issue becomes the cooler you become. Terrific!!

    Lastly, my sense re the NH SoS matter, if they do seek The Truth, offers a soft-path to moving this forward. Yes? As I see it the SoS in any/many states can simply ask The Question without having to address HOW to address it. Then, as more states follow suit, the action of these SoS can be thE means to bring the crucial national attention. How do you feel about this? Is this what you think ‘could’ unfold?

    Respectfully,
    Robare

  33. @phil stone

    You’re probably right. But, assuming he was born in Hawaii, Obama gets his US citizenship from section 305 of the Immigration and naturalization Act.

    “Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.”

  34. In my opinion, the fact that one possesses so-called “dual citizenship” at birth cannot be the sum and substance of an indictment alleging that one lacks eligiblity to hold the office of POTUS. There is simply nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the prior literature that directly and unequivocally disqualifies a dual citizen.

    [Ed. There's nothing to codify the definition of NBC anywhere for that matter. It's all a question of what the intent of the term "natural born citizen" meant to the framers. If, at birth, you owe allegiance to a foreign power, then you are not natural born. I believe that's what they meant and that's what the great weight of authority bears out. Dual citizenship because of some far off attachment via a grandparent is not the same thing, it's not Jus Sanguinis but some batardization of it and it's not Jus Soli. If a person meets the standard of being born on the US soil to citizen parents then one is "natural born".]

    Consider that U.S. citizen grandchidren of Irish-born individuals are entitled to claim Irish citizenship. They are entitled to move to Ireland anytime the choose. Presuming (for the sake of argument, at least) that Ireland has passed, or in the future does pass, a law declaring that U.S. citizen grandchildren of Irish-born individuals are Irish citizens at birth, shall we conclude that all grandchildren of Irish-born individuals are POTUS-ineligible? I don’t think there is anyone who believes, or would have believed, that this should be the result–not Aristotle, not Vattel, not Adams, not Jay, not Washington, not Apuzzo, not Donofrio–nobody.

    So no, it is not the mere fact of dual citizenship at birth that disqualifies one from the office of POTUS.

    But consider the particular case of individuals who, rather than being grandchildren of foreign citizens, are instead actual children of foreign citizens. Such individuals clearly fail the basic definition of natural born citizen, in that they were not born of married parents, both of which were U.S. citizens at the time of the birth.

    All that said, I would not really object too strenuously to being called a “Dualer”, as long as all parties can understand and agree that the real issue is not the presence of dual citizenship on the part of the child per se, but rather, the lack of unity of basic U.S. citizenship on the part of the parents.

    Publius

  35. Following that point, any corporation is inherently a syndicate. The euphemism “separation of church and state” offers a parallel admonition to ensure the “separation of corporations and state” for the same underlying reasons: these sub-entities are structurally in competition with the collective interests of the nation and we the people. By the nature of their expressed singularity of form, they are in fatal conflict with the Constitutional interest however harmonized, complimentary or symbiotic. They must put their corporate interest first or cease to survive.

    Thus, it’s both naive and unfair for us to think a political party can behave in a manner that is not consistent with the behavior of a syndicate. Whether a syndicate engages in illegal or legal behavior is irrelevant to this point, it structurally IS a syndicate in form and interest, as is the structural nature of any corporate entity whether for-profit, not-for-profit or commercial, political or religious.

    At root of this national crisis is the fundamental abrogation and marginalization of the Electoral College role.

    While evil exists and participates our modern political parties, I would caution painting them with a broad brush. We have here a natural selection over 200+ years concentrating power and interests; point being, while they harbor evil (an unfortunate reality in any human organization) the problem is not that the organizations are pathological, but that they are structurally diseased; i.e., they cannot behave differently than this.

    This, I think, was of great concern to the framers. And as I understand the history, the “pure” concept of the Electoral College structure was one of the first elements of the Constitution to fail in function.

    We need to stop electing the POTUS like high schools elect prom queens.

    We need to return to the Constitution and contemplate the mechanisms they intended to mitigate and buffer the pathology inherent in the federal concentration of power and the office of POTUS and institutional dynamics related thereto.

    Using the allegory of “flooding” and property, there are once in 5 year, 10 year, 50 year, 100 year and once in 500 year floods; Not unlike a flood, structural crises of government comes in similar rhythms. I fear the confluence of interests, corruption and dysfunction threatens a national crisis equivalent to the once every 500 years category.

    This crisis is structural and more than 200 years in the making.

    There is much more here and very much more at stake than offending the feelings of John McCain and Barack Obama.

    Were at the beginning of what’s coming next.

  36. More on point, the NBC issue includes singularity of allegiance at birth.

    Someone born a dual national fails this standard.

  37. billvanallen Says:

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
    COLUMBUS DIVISION
    CONNIE RHODES,
    Plaintiff,
    vs.
    THOMAS D. MACDONALD, Colonel,
    Garrison Commander, Fort
    Benning; et al.,
    Defendants.
    CASE NO. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL)
    O R D E R
    Plaintiff, a Captain in the United States Army, seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the Army from deploying her to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Plaintiff alleges that her deployment orders are unconstitutional and unenforceable because President Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to act as Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces. After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. Accordingly, her application for
    a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is denied, and her Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
    Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).

    BACKGROUND
    Plaintiff’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has become known as “the birther movement.” She maintains that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and, therefore, he is
    not eligible to be President of the United States. See Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire, [1] http://www.orlytaitzesq.com (last visited Sept. 15, 2009). Counsel has filed numerous lawsuits in various parts of the country seeking a judicial determination as to the President’s legitimacy to hold the office of President. The present action is the second such action filed in this Court in which counsel pursues her “birther claim.” Her modus operandi is to use military officers as parties and have them allege that they should not be required to follow deployment orders because President Obama is not
    constitutionally qualified to be President. Although counsel has managed to fuel this “birther movement” with her litigation and press conferences, she does not appear to have prevailed on a single claim.[2] In fact, Plaintiff previously filed the present action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. That Court summarily dismissed her complaint upon finding that Plaintiff “has no substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Rhodes v. Gates, 5:09-CV-00703-XR, Order Den. Mot. for TRO 3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2009). Counsel then re-filed the same action in this Court.
    [1] Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution provides in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
    [2] This Court dismissed an earlier action filed by Plaintiff’s counsel on behalf of a military reservist based upon that plaintiff’s lack of standing. See Cook v. Good, No. 4:09-CV-82 (CDL), 2009 WL 2163535 (M.D. Ga. Jul. 16, 2009).
    Plaintiff’s counsel speculates that President Obama was not born in the United States based upon the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an “official birth certificate” that is satisfactory to Plaintiff’s counsel and her followers. She therefore seeks to have the judiciary compel the President to produce “satisfactory” proof that he was born in the United States. Counsel makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. To press her “birther agenda,” Plaintiff’s counsel has filed the present action on behalf of Captain Rhodes. Captain Rhodes entered the Army in March of 2005 and presently serves as a medical doctor. The American taxpayers paid for her third and fourth years of medical school and financially supported her during her subsequent medical internship and residency program. In exchange for this valuable free medical education, Captain Rhodes agreed to serve two years in active service in the Army. She began that term of active service in July of 2008 and had no concerns about fulfilling her military obligation until she received orders notifying her that she would be deployed to Iraq in September of 2009.
    Captain Rhodes does not seek a discharge from the Army; nor does she wish to be relieved entirely from her two year active service obligation. She has not previously made any official complaints regarding any orders or assignments that she has received, including orders that have been issued since President Obama became Commander in Chief. But she does not want to go to Iraq (or to any other destination where she may be in harm’s way, for that matter). Her “conscientious objections” to serving under the current Commander in Chief apparently can be accommodated as long as she is permitted to remain on American soil. Captain Rhodes is presently stationed at Ft. Benning, Georgia awaiting deployment to Iraq. This deployment is imminent and will likely occur absent an order from this Court granting Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
    [3] The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. See Federal Election Commission, Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaign Disbursements Dec. 31, 2008, http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608Pres/3_2008PresPrimaryCmpgnDis.pdf (last visited Sept. 15, 2009).
    Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. Press Release, Federal Election Commission, 2008 Presidential Campaign Financial Activity Summarized (June 8, 2009), available at http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/20090608PresStat.shtml. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought.
    Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not instituted impeachment proceedings, and in fact, the House of Representatives in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Cong. (2009) (commemorating, by vote of 378-0, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August
    4, 1961”).
    DISCUSSION
    I. Jurisdiction and Abstention
    Plaintiff seeks to have this Court declare a deployment order issued by the United States Army void and unenforceable. It is well settled that judicial interference in internal military affairs is disfavored. As the Supreme Court has explained:
    [J]udges are not given the task of running the Army. The responsibility for setting up channels through which such grievances can be considered and fairly settled rests upon the Congress and upon the President of the United States and his subordinates. The military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian. Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to intervene in judicial matters.
    Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1953), quoted with approval in Winck v. England, 327 F.3d 1296, 1302-03 (11th Cir. 2003). The limitation on the judiciary’s involvement in military affairs does not mean that such interference is never appropriate. However, “‘a court should not review internal military affairs in the absence of (a) an allegation of the deprivation of a constitutional right, or an allegation that the military has acted in violation of applicable
    statutes or its own regulations, and (b) exhaustion of available intraservice corrective measures.’” Winck, 327 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1971)). Moreover, mere
    allegations of a constitutional violation unsupported by a reasonable factual foundation are insufficient to warrant judicial review. To hold otherwise would be to create chaos within the military decision-making process and chain of command. As explained below, the Court must balance several factors to determine whether judicial review of a military decision is authorized.
    Typically, the first issue to be resolved in cases seeking judicial review of a military decision is whether the soldier has exhausted all intraservice administrative remedies. See Winck, 327 F.3d at 1304. In the present case, Defendants do not contend that Plaintiff was required to exhaust her intraservice administrative remedies, presumably because no procedure is in place for a soldier to contest the qualifications of the Commander in Chief. Defendants do argue, however, that the dispute presented by Plaintiff’s complaint is not justiciable in the courts.
    Even if a soldier has exhausted her intraservice administrative remedies, the Court must decline to review the military decision if the review would constitute an inappropriate intrusion into military
    matters. Id. at 1303 & n.4 (citing Mindes, 453 F.2d at 201). It has long been the law in this Circuit that in determining whether judicial review of a military decision should be undertaken, the reviewing court
    ‘must examine the substance of that allegation in light of the policy reasons behind nonreview of military matters,’ balancing four factors: (1) ‘The nature and strength of the plaintiff’s challenge to the military determination’; (2) ‘The potential injury to the plaintiff if review is refused’; (3) ‘The type and degree of anticipated interference with the military function’; and (4) ‘The extent to which the exercise of military expertise or discretion is involved.’
    Winck, 327 F.3d at 1303 n.4 (quoting Mindes, 453 F.2d at 201). Although certain aspects of the Mindes decision have been eroded through the years, the Eleventh Circuit has relatively recently reaffirmed the “unflagging strength of the principles of comity and judicial noninterference with, and respect for, military operations that informed” the analysis in Mindes. Winck, 327 F.3d at 1304.
    [4] It is not always clear whether the analysis of the appropriateness of judicial review of military decisions involves subject matter jurisdiction or abstention principles based on comity and respect for the unique military decision-making process. The Court finds that the proper analysis in this case requires an evaluation of the deployment order using principles of abstention. See Winck, 327 F.3d at 1299-1300 (distinguishing subject matter jurisdiction from abstention principles).
    Using the Mindes factors as an analytical framework, the Court finds that it is not authorized to interfere with Plaintiff’s deployment orders. First, Plaintiff’s challenge to her deployment order is frivolous. She has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States. Instead, she uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the President is “an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.” (Compl. ¶ 21.) She continues with bare, conclusory allegations that the President is “an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted illegal alien . . . without so much as lawful residency in the United States.” (Id. ¶ 26.) Then, implying that the President is either a wandering nomad or a prolific identity fraud crook, she alleges that the President “might have used as many as 149 addresses and 39 social security numbers prior to assuming the office of President.” (Id. ¶
    110 (emphasis added).) Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed
    fraudulent.” (Id. ¶ 113 (emphasis added).) In further support of her claim, Plaintiff relies upon “the general opinion in the rest of the world” that “Barack Hussein Obama has, in essence, slipped through the guardrails to become President.” (Id. ¶ 128.) Moreover, as though the “general opinion in the rest of the world” were not enough, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that according to an “AOL poll 85% of Americans believe that Obama was not vetted, needs to be vetted and his vital records need to be produced.” (Id. ¶ 154.)
    Finally, in a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Plaintiff unashamedly alleges that Defendant has the burden to prove his “natural born” status. (Id. ¶¶ 136-138, 148.) Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his innocence” to “charges” that are based upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles.
    Although the Court has determined that the appropriate analysis here involves principles of abstention and not an examination of whether Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court does find the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis helpful in confirming the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s claim has no merit. To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). For a complaint to be facially plausible, the Court must be able “to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
    misconduct alleged” based upon a review of the factual content pled by the Plaintiff. Id. The factual allegations must be sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff’s complaint is not plausible on its face. To the extent that it alleges any “facts,” the Complaint does not connect those facts to any actual violation of Plaintiff’s individual constitutional rights. Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so. The weakness of Plaintiff’s claim certainly weighs heavily against judicial review of the deployment order, and in fact, would
    One piece of “evidence” Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying “a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy” of the document. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7,
    Sept. 3, 2009.) Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. 10
    authorize dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.5 Examining the second Mindes factor, the Court further finds that the risk of potential irreparable injury to Plaintiff as a result of the Court’s refusal to review the deployment order is minimal. Plaintiff has not sought to be excused from all military service. She does not seek a discharge from the Army. She does not even seek to avoid taking military orders under President Obama’s watch. She simply seeks to avoid being deployed to Iraq. As observed by the Eleventh Circuit, one “cannot say that military deployment, in and of
    itself, necessarily entails [irreparable harm], even if to volatile regions.” Winck, 327 F.3d at 1305 n.9. “Holding otherwise could unduly hamper urgent military operations during times of crisis.” Id. Thus, the lack of potential irreparable harm to Plaintiff weighs against judicial review.
    Finally, the “type and degree of anticipated interference with the military function” that judicial review would cause is significantly burdensome. Any interference with a deployment order injects the Court directly into the internal affairs of the military. This type of interference has serious implications. For example, it would encourage other soldiers who are not satisfied with their deployment destination to seek review in the courts. It also will have an adverse effect on other soldiers who honorably perform their duties. Presumably, some other military doctor, who does not resort to frivolous litigation to question the President’s legitimacy as Commander in Chief, would be required to go to Iraq in Plaintiff’s
    place. Similarly, the doctor who Plaintiff is being sent to relieve and who has likely been there for months would be delayed in receiving his well deserved leave because his replacement seeks special treatment due to her political views or reservations about being placed in harm’s way. “It is not difficult to see that the exercise of such jurisdiction as is here urged would be a disruptive force as to affairs peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the military authorities.” Orloff, 345 U.S. at 94-95.
    Based on an evaluation of all of these factors, the Court concludes that it must abstain from interfering with the Army’s deployment orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is denied, and her complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
    II. Failure to Satisfy Elements for Temporary Restraining Order
    Even if the Court did not abstain from deciding the merits of Plaintiff’s claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish her entitlement to a temporary restraining order.
    Plaintiff must establish the following to obtain a temporary restraining order:
    (1) [Plaintiff] has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
    (2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues;
    (3) the threatened injury to [Plaintiff] outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and
    (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.
    Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005).
    As explained previously, Plaintiff has demonstrated no likelihood of success on the merits. Her claims are based on sheer conjecture and speculation. She alleges no factual basis for her “hunch” or “feeling” or subjective belief that the President was not born in the United States. Moreover, she cites no legal authority supporting her bold contention that the alleged “cloud” over the President’s birthplace amounts to a violation of her individual constitutional rights. Thus, for these reasons alone, she is not
    entitled to a temporary restraining order.
    Second, as previously noted, the Court’s refusal to interfere with Plaintiff’s deployment orders does not pose a substantial threat of irreparable injury to her. Plaintiff does not seek to be discharged and apparently is willing to follow all orders from her military command except for any order that deploys her to Iraq.
    Although close proximity to any combat zone certainly involves personal danger, Plaintiff, somewhat disingenuously, claims that fear is not her motivation for avoiding her military duty. She insists that she would have no qualms about fulfilling her duties if President George W. Bush was still in office. The Court cannot find from the present record that deployment to Iraq under the current administration will subject Plaintiff to any threat of harm that is different than the harm to which she would be exposed if another candidate had won the election. A substantial threat of irreparable harm related to her desire not to serve in Iraq under the current President simply does not exist.
    Third, any potential threatened injury that may be caused to Plaintiff by the denial of the temporary restraining order certainly does not outweigh the harm that will result if the injunction is granted. As mentioned previously, the threatened injury to Plaintiff is not substantial; yet if the temporary restraining order was granted, the harmful interference with military operations would be significant.
    Finally, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the granting of the temporary restraining order will not be adverse to the public interest. A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.
    For all of these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.
    CONCLUSION
    For the reasons previously stated, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is denied and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Defendants shall recover their costs from Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).
    IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of September, 2009. S/Clay D. Land
    CLAY D. LAND
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

  38. “Complete analysis is forthcoming. The news isn’t all bad though. Getting these faulty defective issues out of the way is going to help prepare a thoroughly plead law suit in the right venue at some point in time. More to follow. I do not believe that military people have the proper standing. Originally, I thought they might but after reviewing the quo warranto statute I realized they didn’t and have not advocated their involvement.”

    As much as I want to see BHO get the boot for being ineligible. It has to be a good case that forces the Courts & Congress to address this issue once and for all. The interpretation of of NBC and the implications of Birth Right Citizenship are bigger than BHO. Presidents come and go.
    I suggest everyone Watch the 2 Dr. Eastman Videos on You tube.

  39. Civis Naturaliter Natus Says:

    Leo,

    at

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/judge-land-rules-against-rhodes/

    it implies that Rhode’s pleadings raised the issue of British citizenship, and cites p. 37 of them.

    [Ed. The pleadings in paragraph 135 states that all Obama must do is submit a BC to prove his eligibility... in paragraph 137 it mentions his father's foreign citizenship...but the complaint does not properly nail the issue down. I think she tried, but clearly the Judge didn't address it. So if she's going to appeal... she should certainly make that issue the highlight of the appeal.]

  40. Although this information has been out in the public domain for sometime now, it’s refreshing to read it w/o all of the background noise of the campaign.

    What has been most alarming to me throughout this debacle is why the Republican’s weren’t going after this issue during the general? Well, in a rare moment of clarity, I now know why. I sincerely appreciate your posting on McCain’s citizen status.

    So the D’s fraudulently put up a candidate who he himself claims to only be a “native citizen” and the R’s fraudulently put a candidate who was a dual citizen at birth, then we now know why there has been silence from the right side of the aisle.

    It would also explain the media’s complicity in dismissing the “birth” story b/c they were caught in the middle of both party’s – R and D. Therefore, silencing us through name calling and so much more was the media’s job which I’m sure they were rewarded in many ways for. OMG. Why hasn’t this dawned on me sooner?

    Leo, how would one go about suing both Party’s for fraud? What does one need to have “standing”? Moreover, could a class action suit be filed?

    [Ed. It's a mess...]

  41. Willem said:

    “We need to return to the Constitution and contemplate the mechanisms they intended to mitigate and buffer the pathology inherent in the federal concentration of power and the office of POTUS and institutional dynamics related thereto.”

    To that I would add that we may also (or alternatively) need to return to the original Constitution and resume electing Senators by means of respective votes by the members of the several state legislatures. The constitutional amendment that deprived the state legislatures of this function and invested it in the general voting public removed a large reason for residents of a particular state to care who they elect to the state legislature. As a result, the actions of any given state’s legislative branch no longer have nearly the local importance or national significance that they once had. This is a shame, because as members of the voting public, we are much more likely to develop and maintain a firm grip on the members of our state assembly and state senate than we are on our federal Senators.

    Statewide election of the two Senators for each state has produced a body of 100 federal legislators that effectively answer to nobody, as long as the average Senator builds up a large enough warchest. Wouldn’t it be better for the average Senator to be sweating, or at least minimally concerned, about how well he was thought of by the members of his or her home state legislature? This way, when sitting federal Senators begin to act or vote in ways that are not in the best interests of their home state, or in was that alienate a majority of the elected legislature of their home state, there would presumably be consequences. More specifically, there would be consequences that would be hard (or at least harder) to solve, simply by dipping into their campaign warchest.

  42. “Jindal’s parents were permanent residents of the U.S. at the time he was born, on their way to citizenship. Mr. Obama’s father, by contrast, was only a temporary resident of the U.S. when the child was born (he held a student visa).”

    Think about it, A Jindal candidacy get’s BHO a pass on NBC in 2012, like Mc Cain did in 08. Both major parties can continue to ignore the law. I am sure that a “non agression treaty” is in the works as we speak.
    Heck the field is wide open for foreigners in 2012.
    What are the OBOT’s going to challenge him on?

    [ed. this is what ive been saying... keep the quo warranto standing on lock down is the plan apparently]

  43. BuckeyeTexan Says:

    Judge Clay Land had this say today regarding Orly Taitz’s lawsuit in Georgia:

    “Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to ‘prove his innocence’ to ‘charges’ that are based upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly ‘protect and preserve’ those very principles.”

    He thinks asking Barack H. Obama to prove that he’s a natural born citizen is abandoning the fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded. Has he read the U.S. Constitution lately? This isn’t about charging Barack H. Obama with a crime and asking him to prove that he’s innocent. This is about adhering to and upholding the Supreme Law of the land.

    I expected him to dismiss this lawsuit, but I’m disapointed at his view of the situation in which we find ourselves. We have an ineligible POTUS and seemingly no way under the Supreme Law of Land to seek recourse against the Electors and Congress for failing to perform the basic duty of qualifying the candidate who won the presidential election of 2008.

  44. Leo,

    Thinking outside the box….each branch of government and its officers has two types of duties…..ministerial and discretionary…correct?

    It is the duty of each branch and officer to do their ministerial tasks as required, and a COurt can and will order them to do so, but no Court will interfer with any officers discretionary actions…..true?

    Understanding all of the research as I have to date: THe only actual path that Congress has left open to “correct” the current POTUS “issue” is Quo Warranto….HOWEVER….

    Since the Courts are loathe to entertain any action toward resolving the problem themselves….why can’t we seek to get them to Order Congress to “repair” its process….it certainly would not be te first time that the Courts have ordered either an officer or a Government entity to do its duty to correct an INJUSTICE while refraining from telling them HOW to do it…..(their discretion to solve an infirm issue.)

    The admitted facts are quite simple….Mr. Obama was born a dual citizen, and so was Mr. McCain…..the Congress refuses to do its ministerial duty insuring that the eligibility requirements for POTUS have been met…nor can they BECAUSE it is the province of the Courts to decide what the law (read US Constitution: RE natural born citizen) means…. Marbury vs Madison….

    So since the Constitution specifically says who is responsible and to those issues not specifically provided for they either belong to the States or the people…we the people have a right to seek relief in the Court to compel Congress to do its duty…..we cant hold them accountable for the neglect that caused this crises, BUT are we not entitled to seek the compulsion of them all (Representatives and Senators) to insure compliance with the Constitutional mandates of Article 2, Sec 1 RE POTUS.

    AFTER ALL this is a ministerial duty imposed by the US Constitution is it not? Insuring compliance with Artcle 2, Section 1…..

    THese are not discretionary applications subject to the discretion of Congress, but mandated…and since the Constitution does impose a duty on Congress regarding other infirmities regarding the OFFICE of the President…it is well that the Court’s should issue a Writ of Mandate compelling Congress to act to solve the issue, and provide Congress with appropriate defininitions of NBC to guide them in complying with the mandates of the Supreme Law of the Land.

    I would think that naming the Secretary of State: (because immigration is under this office) the Vice President: (as head of the Congress) speaker Pelosi: as head of the House and finallyCongress itself would mean original jurisdiction for the US Supreme Court…would it not?

    As for standing, there are way too many cases where the Courts have granted standing to an individual where it was necessary to compel a government official to do their ministerial acts……

    If such an action is not even remotely possible then we are no longer in a country of men governed by the rule of law, but imprisoned in a facist state of slavery ….maybe tis is were the best argument is made to “remove” some of these judicially created” doctrines that prevent enforcing the rule of law, and protecting our nation from this great tribe of 535 criminals…..

    What say you LEO!

    [ed. i believe this is exactly what mario's suit has attempted, to sue congresss for not doing their job. so we shall see how that works out...]

  45. There is an aspect of your case against McCain that undermines the Constitution and also undermines your case against Obama.

    The word “jurisdiction” is important here. We assert the scope of our jurisdiction and do not recognize overlap onto it ( except for Indians on reservations ). We need to recognize other nations’ right to do what we do in regards to applying citizenship, but the US doesn’t do what Panama does and therefore we can’t recognize their claim. We don’t claim the children of foreign ambassadors born on US soil as our own citizens, and for the same reason and on the same principle that Obama can’t claim 14th Amendment citizenship.

    [Ed. i have no idea what you are trying to say...]

    The British/Kenya claim on Obama at birth is much different than Panama’s claim on McCain. We can’t refuse to recognize their claim when we make the same claim when the tables are turned.

  46. If, as you say, McCain, at birth, was counted a citizen according to the Panama Constitution, then would not all Americans, military or not, be considered as well? Where is the line drawn that Americans are not under another countries Constitution while being stationed in their country? McCain was born of two American natural born citizens and if his citizenship follows that of his father, as Obamas is reputed to, then how can he not be natural born? This stuff is way over my head but I like reading it anyway. Thanks for sharing your expertise, Leo.

    [ed. nbc follows the soil and the blood...you need both in my opinion. neither candidate has both.]

  47. How does this tie in to your position on the nbc? It seems the fine line is what is agreed as “Canal Zone” vs. Panama-controlled?

    http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

    [ed. no. the panama cz was still panama,a soil, hence jus soli citizenship for mccain.]

  48. Addendum: It should be mentioned that this was a non-binding resolution, whatever that means. On its face it seems to be very weak constitutionally from everything we’ve learned from research on the history of wording of “nbc”. By the way, who is meant by “other presidents” who have been born on foreign soil (except subject to the grandfather clause?)

    [ed. the framers themselves...]

  49. It has all come back to Quo Warranto. In the Carter case the defense argues it is proper for Congress to address the issue and it made sense when I read it because of your blog here. They have a good point, it is up to Congress and quo warrento is the mechanism by which to bring this complaint. If I hadn’t read it here I might have cried foul on the defense, but they are right in their approach. But others can learn from this, if this is the defense then it’s an easy clue where to go. Quo warranto. And you are the only person to bring it, Leo.

    This time was made for you to bring this to the DC circuit court. It’s becoming obvious don’t you think?

    [ed. give this man a cigar. it's the topic of my next post. qw in the dc district court is the only way to go... ]

    How many sloppy filings by Orly can we take?

    It must be satisfying to see that your initial, simple recognition of QW, is basically being used by the defense itself paving the road to DC court.

    [Ed. you beat me to the point of my next post....]

  50. Leo,

    How would you reconcile the thoughts of Joseph Story on the distictions of ‘domicil’ and ‘in transitu’ of McLames parents.

    I am remaining nutral on the children of Active Duty Military until we have a Constitutional definition of NBC with the expectation that certain particular obligations would be required to Preserve, Protect and Defend that Honor, especially should birth occur ‘in transitu’.

    Joseph Story. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States

    § 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.

    [ed. mccain was a panama citizen at birth. had he been born abroad in a country which did not recognize him as a jus soli citizen, the issue would have been more complex but in this case, ,mccain was a panama citizen - probably right up until he joined the military at which point article 13 of the Panama constitution would have kicked in and his citizenship stripped. funny how mccain never had to acknowledge his Panama citizenship. that's wild.]

  51. [Ed. i have no idea what you are trying to say...]

    Do you think people born to US ambassadors working and living in US embassies overseas are natural born US citizens?

    Do we let the citizenship laws of that particular foreign nation decide the matter for us?

    [Ed. It's long accepted that ambassadors are exempt from citizenship issues. McCain's father was not an ambassador. Dual citizenship is recognized by the State department. If you are born in a country that allows jus soli citizenship, then the US can do nothing about that. The framers wanted no entanglements with the commander in chief. Too bad for the baby born abroad. He cannot be President.]

  52. Hi, Leo:

    I wanted to tell you that your blog is the best on the NBC issue and seems the most logical, period. I do have a question for you, and maybe you know or don’t know, do you have other lawyers, congress people, etc., talking to you about this? I just think that if they aren’t around, then they need to be around and researching this because I didn’t really understand this issue until you started talking about it. Actually I had never encountered this problem before. I remember in school studying it, but it’s not anywhere as great as this, so I’m thinking that most people just don’t know. And I do doubt this issue in truth is being taught in our schools, which it needs to be.

    [ed. Congress people would rather drink sludge than talk to me.]

  53. [ed. Congress people would rather drink sludge than talk to me.]

    Leo, there aren’t many decent ones out there, but there are some. I can’t imagine them not researching your blog, and then, too, the Undead Revolution’s blog. I’m telling you, and you probably already know this, but most judges, most congress people are just not educated in the Natural Born Citizen issue. Personally I can’t imagine them not wanting to learn, but I guess that’s the way of our country now. So many are hiding their heads in the sand. It’s pretty sick, if you ask me.

  54. Jess Brown –

    Why don’t you research this stuff YOURSELF? I gave you the reference to follow!

    However, I will make it more clear with this –

    The Organizational Chart of the Panama Canal Health Department, published December 31, 1936, shows no inpatient hospital operated by the U.S. Navy, but rather the same chart shows a pre-war hospital and naval dispensary (temporary sick bay) located across Manzanillo Bay on the island of Colón

    [Ed. Thanks for providing this to my readers.]

  55. We no longer have leaders in our government, we have self serving political parties and their drones – called POLITICIANS. It is George Washington’s worst possible fears played out before our very eyes.

  56. Leo’s analysis is born out in practice by the number of children of American military personnel born on the Canal Zone, who, because they ran afoul of U.S. law while living here with their parents, were DEPORTED to Panama.

    Nimble researchers can find for themselves several of these cases that were appealed to Federal court, and where decisions made by an Immigration administrative law judge was upheld.

  57. Another thing, Leo, more regular people are starting to learn of the NBC issue and understand it than ever before. A whole lot of this is thanks to you for your education. We have let so many things go throughout the years because guessing they would still be the same. Not! And I’m thinking that once someone starts seriously understanding what the framers thought and what they said about it all, then they’ll see how important this is. I don’t think many realize the importance of what a dual allegiance means and how that can divide and take down a country, a kingdom. It’s like a kingdom divided against itself will not stand! Well, it sure won’t.

  58. Leo,
    I love you like a child of mine would be loved, and in most everything you write about I totally agree with you in every stance, BUT, on this stand you are taking, you are not looking at the whole picture on McCain. He was born in the Hospital at Colon, in Panama, becasue there was NO HOSPITAL on the base (there was a small CLINIC on the base, but not a hospital) at the time his mother was giving birth to him in 1936. The hospital at Colon was the closest thing to a hospital that she could get to to give birth in, and at that time the getting ready and the stay in hospital after birth was about two weeks and would have required a hospital stay of that duration for safety rasons for both the mother and the infant.

    That is the reason for his birth being at Colon, his mother was in Panama with her husband and he was stationed there while working on the Canal and they were legitimately AMERICAN Citizens at the time, both of them, even Natural Born, and were on duty for the service of the Army, and there are various different citations in the Constitution that state that the FAMILY of SERVICE PEOPLE WHILE ON DUTY FOR AND IN THE SERVICE OF THE GOVERNMENT are entitled to NATURAL BORN STATUS when a birth occurs while in those circumstances, specifically, and were put in there for just such a reason, so that children of AMERICANS who are serving their Country in other locations and happen to have families and give brith while in said duty stations; their children are not deprived of that Natural Born Status.

    [Ed. I'm sorry your emotions won't allow you to comprehend the vision of protection for this nation the framers gave us... No one person is so important that they can't be excluded from POTUS eligibility in order to protect the nation from foreign influence in the White House. The NBC clause and NBC status are created by the framers for ONE SINGULAR PURPOSE - national security.

    Because people allowed McCain to run, despite his having been born a Panama citizen, we now have Obama and McCain can't challenge on Quo Warranto because he has no moral authority to challenge and this is now an example of why the framers wisdom should not be ignored. The danger is not only that a person with foreign allegiance will gain office, but the danger is that someone like McCain - a war hero with questionable eligibility - allowed OBama to run free of proper vetting. NO FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE WHATSOEVER. This is the rule and it was not upheld as to McCain. McCain KNEW he was putting us in jeopardy.

    Also, there is NOTHING in the Constitution which provides for NBC status to anyone for any reason. Your legal analysis is awful and misleading.]

    You have got to change your outlook on this particular thing, as it makes you seem like you are very rigid and determined to always toe the line no matter what the circumstances merit. I am sorry to have to be hard on you, but this is important, and it is the reason that S 511 was made a big deal about. McCain nor his mother nor father, could have created a hospital on that base just for his birth. It wasn’t possible for him to be born and his mother to stay in a Clinic for two weeks as was common at the time of his birth. I am sure that the base didn’t have the facilities to accommodate a physical birth at that time in that place. They probably didn’t/couldn’t even give her the prenatal care that was required, because there probably weren’t that many women on the base. And certainly none that were pregnant, that would have had to give birth on the base, as in McCain’s case.

    [Ed. I don't give a crap about why he had to be born on Panama soil. Screw that. I am rigid my friend. Had the nation and people like you been just as rigid, McCain wouldn't have been allowed to run and then whoever did run -a real natural born citizen - would have been able to challenge Obama in a Quo Warranto. MCcCain has hurt this nation and he knew EXACTLY what he was doing.]

  59. Attn: BuckeyeTexan Says: September 16, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    RE:
    ‘Judge Clay Land had this say today regarding Orly Taitz’s lawsuit in Georgia: “Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to ‘prove his innocence’ to ‘charges’ that are based upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school…’

    Sure we understand that Orly made a mistake but any such mistake is insignificant comparing it to the irrelevant language of the judge.

    For one, if the counsel is legally allowed to represent the plaintiff at that court, that is all that should matter. What does it matter if in the opinion of the judge she “champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom”?

    For another, the COLB that was never verified by HI. Yet the judge seems to take it as evidence.

    The part about how much money the parties spent on the campaign taken as proof by the judge that the nominee was constitutionally eligible is ridiculous. What on earth that has to do with eligibility?

    The judge turned the whole thing into a personal attack on the counsel, leaving the heart of the matter untouched. If this suit is not a good candidate for appeal than what is?

  60. BuckeyeTexan said:

    This isn’t about charging Barack H. Obama with a crime and asking him to prove that he’s innocent. This is about adhering to and upholding the Supreme Law of the land.

    Exactly. It’s not an issue of compelling Obama to ‘prove his innocence’.

    It’s not an issue of “innocent until proven guilty“.

    It’s an issue of “ineligible until proven eligible“.

    It’s the reason why you have to provide documents and an I-9 form to prove you are eligible to hold any job in the United States.

    All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    Got that? “MUST”.

    And Obama hasn’t even done that.

    It’s not optional, and there is no exception made for the job of President of the United States.

    “We the People” are the employer. Barack Hussein Obama II (a.k.a Barry Soetoro) is the employee. The burden of proof is on the employee, not the employer. Obama has to prove that he is eligible to work in the United States, per the Immigration Reform and Control Act that was signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986. And Obama has to prove that he is eligible to hold the office of President and Commander in Chief… he has to prove that he is a “natural born citizen” per Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

    Obama has already proven that he is ineligible… by openly admitting that he had foreign citizenship at birth.

    Judge Land is wrong in his reasoning. Take part of what he said, and apply it to him:

    “In a remarkable shifting of the traditional legal burden of proof, Judge Land unashamedly alleges that the employer has the burden to prove that the employee is ineligible.”

  61. I am sick of this BS. Here’s my idea.
    Let me know what you think and if it is doable. I am not a lawyer. WE just had over a million people march, and they are sick of it too. Did anyone take down contact information? Emails? Twitter? My proposal is that we get 1000 to 10,000 or more of these marchers who are sick of this regime and file a class action lawsuit. We get a reputable constitutional attorney to represent us.
    The key elements of our case would be :
    -OBama Saotao lied during the campaign duping people into thinking he was a natural born citizen when he wasn’t and isn’t. By his own words, by his grandmother’s words, by his own mother’s words in divorce papers, and by various reports from Kenya on his birth there.
    - We have damages from the bills he has signed in the form of mental anguish for abortions performed by his executive orders, $33,500 each from the stimulus bill (imagin the amount if we had 10,000 people that’s over 33 million dollars). We also have damages in form of loss of life and other harm due to the mismanagement on the war in Afganistan).

    We stick to the Constitution and throw in all the points everyone has made here on the board.

    This is just a summary. When do we start? Do we have a chance? I can , in the words fo the imortal Fred G. Sanfor- coordinate the effort. IF I get the information. And some help.
    What do you say?
    da verg // September 16, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    the suit would be against Osaotao and
    pelosi and the DNC
    as well as Congress.

    Our representatives are not listening to us.

  62. Leo, It has always been my belief that McCain’s NBC problem gave Obama all the cover he needed. The GOP establishment slapped down efforts on the right to raise the NBC issue with Obama because they understood their own candidate’s exposure on the issue. What were the chances that both major party candidates would face constitutional eligibility issues in the same presidential election? At least there was an attempt by the Senate to address the issue, which by the way was first raised by supporters of George W. Bush when McCain ran against him for the nomination in 2000. As I recall, an Arizona law professor penned a law review article a year or so ago explaining why McCain was not constitutionally eligible to be president.

    [Ed. McCain provided cover for Obama's eligibility. Exactly.]

  63. Leo,

    You work with precision. Taitz displays extraordinary energy and persistence working in a complex legal system that is not in her native language. I wish you worked together. In any case, I think she deserves a bit more appreciation, at least for the patriotism she shows.

    [Ed. I have to make precise legal comments regarding her cases. Like it or not, the DOJ attorneys have hit all the right points in their briefs. Her pleadings are rambling and they contain things which simply do not belong in a complaint. The complaint is a device that is to be used for the purpose of creating a cause of action. It should be streamlined with just the cause of action and the necessary parties. The cause of action later in court will require proof, facts and testimony. Orly appears to be trying he cases within the complaint. That's not ever going to be taken seriously. All of the evidence she cites to in the complaint is prejudicial to the defendant unless it comes through the court via the proper channels - witnesses sworn in under oath - and discovery. The pleadings are not setting forth the proper causes of action and they are confusing and the judges should dismiss them.

    I'm just talking from a legal perspective here. I've spoke to Orly recently and told her I'm rooting for her. I sent her my blog which set out the proper cause of action as to British birth. I see she changed her pleading for Rhodes a bit, but it still doesn't set forth the British birth issue properly and the judge was within his professional rights to ignore it - since it was not properly before his court. I wish Orly all the best, but I'm not impressed with the pleadings and I'm not surprised they were dismissed.

    As to the Barnes case, it belongs in the DC District Court framed as a Quo warranto and in order to do that it had to be properly put before the AG, US Attorney or the court by way of a request to use the name of the US "ex relator."]

    The above statement I suppose is a premature digression as I wanted to address the partisan issue.

    I agree that it is not a partisan issue and I believe it is having the opposite effect on party affiliation. The Obama administration and its radical behavior has done more to focus my attention on being American than any event in my lifetime. I give little thought to party. Relative to the danger our Constitution faces, party hardly registers on the scale.

    I imagine there are many more like me than those living on the far edges of the political spectrum. Both parties are polluted and we have no wholesome alternative at this point. The parties have inadvertently altered their constituents focus away from party identification and onto the survival of America. They are kindly yet mindlessly committing suicide. 9/12 wasn’t about party, it was about citizens in fear of losing their country

    Something will come along for us to rally around but it won’t be called Democrat or Republican. This is a serious situation and neither party handles reality all that well. Why can’t we stop interpreting the Constitution and just read it. After all, they took a lot of effort to write with exceptional clarity and precision for that very reason.

    Personally, I believe “Jeffersonian” has a nice ring to it.

    If Burr had been [Ed. snip - don't mention that kind of duel. People will get the wrong impression.]

    By the way, I really enjoy reading your blog and look forward to each new update.

  64. Anonymous writes-”In either case, I find the NA1790 too large to ignore with regard to birth abroad to US citizens.”

    No it was repealed- corrected effectively erased after only 5 yrs by probably the same people.

    It should be ignored- that is what the law saids

  65. Publius, I concur.

    The sepsis in the US Senate is a product of its renegade malignant form.

    The state governments lost representation in the federal government when they lost the control of selecting the Senators to represent them.

    Our Senate has become a orgy of sanctimony and self-worship.

  66. This should be the Dualers rally cry.

    “By Blood and Soil!”

  67. I submit that we make the distinction between “birthers,” those who focus on where Obama was born, and “borners,” those who focus on the far more important issue of him not being a natural born citizen.

    [Ed. We've already done that - but the term is Dualers.]

  68. Mick the dualer Says:

    Leo,
    I think a dealer principle like this would have standing in QW. I have a plan.

    http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/jun/02/monarch-dodge-sues-massey-yardley-over-closing-dec/

  69. Leo,

    IF Quo Warranto is the only way, (hard to believe, but possiible) and McCain is not the client….and while you have the best grasp that can be found…where is the Client….who would be the Client…because clearly sending letters to the US Attorney didn’t work….and don’t even mention Eric Holder, Where is the solution…..what could be the solution?

    [Ed. read my quo warranto legal brief. At this point, a person like Inspector general Walpin would be able to walk right into the DC District Court and demand a jury trial in Quo Warranto... I believe he would have standing having been ousted from his position by a usurper POTUS. I believe a fair reading of the SCOTUS in Newman supports standing. But Walpin does not appear interested. So we should be on the lookout for somebody else. Since Jeffrey Taylor resigned as US Attorney for DC he does not have standing. Had he been fired, he would have had standing. Any of the US Attorneys who are fired by Obama will have a good shot at standing. Eventually he's going to fire the wrong person and that person is going to head to the DC District Court and file a quo warranto.]

    The greatest nation ever on earth destroyed from within by 535 egotistical fat cats who know its all about them, who can continue to get reelected time and again regardless of their misdeeds and misconduct ….

    Say it aint so Leo ????

    PS Mario Apuzzo and comapny have been waiting for a decision…and at least 3 months can go by before a request to appellate level seeking a “decision” is that correct….or is there a better “timeline” that you can share with us layman regarding the Judges rendering a decision in that case ????

  70. Seizethecarp Says:

    In the Keyes case before Judge Carter, if Obama is found ineligible because he is not NBC could Judge Carter “simply” fashion a narrow remedy for Keyes to compensate him for losing to an ineligible candidate and just leave any implications regarding Obama’s position as Potus for Congress and an infomed public to deal with?

    Judge Carter’s announced inclination to deny the DOJ motion to dismiss on Oct. 5 and then proceed to trial requires him to have a remedy in mind for at least one of Orly’s plaintiffs to satisfy a jurisdiction requirement. A finding that Obaama is ineligible and then a narrow remedy for Keyes would not violate the separation of powers regarding removal of the POTUS.

    [Ed. I hate to burst your bubble but that case is not going to end in favor of anyone but Obama.]

  71. The PCZ Treaty specifically excluded Colon from USA jurisdiction. That never changed. I agree that it wouldn’t make any difference as the Constitution of Panama declared McCain a citizen at birth. What this information adds is support to the fact that McCain had and possibly has dual citizenship.

    Unconstitutional issues are or should not be partisan.
    Those that try to make them partisan are putting their party before the constitution and their country. Isn’t that exactly what has happened in DC? US citizens that continue this partisan poop can add their names to the list of poopers that are burying the US constitution.

    Hays Buana Varilla Treaty (President Rutherford B. Hayes)
    Article II treaty 1903

    “The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity, the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific Ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark with the proviso that the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant.”

    [Ed. Thanks for posting this. It's amazing that we haven't had a thorough analysis of McCain's Panama citizenship until now. ]

  72. Publius- wow wish I can talk like you- the grand child of irishborn has no meaning– if the child is born here of 2 citizen parents he is naturalborn- that cant be given or taken away.
    your way in some way we are all british dualers or what ever. why stop at grand parents.

    so I think dualer is what you are at birth-the condition of birth thru location and parents only no foreign ruling would make you a dualer

  73. ques for willem Says: Please, direct me to section in the Constitution where it states, “separation of church and state.” I find where religion and freedom of religion are addressed. However, what I read doesn’t get me to separation of church and state. Did I miss something?
    I did read the “wall of separation letter” that Jefferson wrote on Jan.1,1802. But that is not included in the first amendment, which is violated every time DC tells us we can’t pray in school or where ever we darn well feel like praying. sorry this is off subject but it is too important a subject to ignore.

  74. Leo be Proud that congress people would rather drink sludge then talk to you. Those people are lower than an ant with an umbrella.

  75. beyond baffled Says:

    Is there anyway that eligibility can be challenged outside of the court system? Can’t congress now look into the issue? This is a national security issue after all. It seems that waiting months and spending millions of dollars is crazy when it can be answered in 5 minutes. I am not clear why this is an issue only for the courts. There must be another avenue available.

    [ed. Congress has enacted the Quo Warranto statute. I imagine they could take some other measures as well. But they won't unless forced to. For example, if somebody starts to scare them who might have quo warranto standing, look for Congress to step in and try to take over the issue with a dog and pony show examination of eligibility that will end in favor of Obama.]

  76. Leo,
    Great blog, once again.

    The ‘intent’ of the founding fathers was to prevent entanglements, that is something we all can agree on. You don’t pick NBC status, it picks you. You have no other claim on your birth, you are NBC. Another soveriegn nation claims your birth, you are not NBC, even if disputed by the United States.

    In respect to John McCain, he was born on a 3rd world doorstep while his parent(s) were serving for the United States. Panama, may legally have laws in effect to claim John McCain birth, but they have NEVER publically claimed him, or to my knowledge, granted him citizenship.

    [Ed. The Panama Constitution granted John McCain citizenship. It doesn't require any specific grant to him. It was automatic. Many people born in the PCZ are Panama citizens. You just don't understand the law. John McCain was a Panama citizen at birth due to no fault of his own, just as Obama was a British citizen at birth due to no fault of his own. You can't exclude one and not exclude the other. That's a load of emotional crap. John McCain sold you out.]

    Further, John McCain has never, to my knowledge, asked or received citizenship from panama, served panama obligations or accepted panama benefits, as an adult or child.

    [Ed. McCain was born with Panama citizenship. He didn't have to ask for it.]

    Does the above make John McCain a NBC?

    [Ed. No. McCain is NOT nbc.]

    I’m just a little grey on that, and I’m not much for grey. My gut tells me that children of parents serving at the behest of the US government oversees, should not be punished for their parents service. Luckily, I don’t have to make a decision about John McCain since he was not elected POTUS. Speaking from purely a technical standpoint, he is NOT a NBC if Panama claimed him at birth.

    [Ed. Panama claimed everyone born on their soil. That's their sovereign right. McCain was able to renounce that citizenship expressly or implicitly as an adult. By joining the US armed forces, I believe he gave up his Panama citizenship under Article 13 of the Panama Constitution.]

    The real question here, as you have pointed out, is the sitting POTUS.
    Was he born without entanglements?

    [Ed. no. The real question of this post is why didn't John McCain tell the American people that when he was born he was born a citizen of Panama. Surely, if everyone else born in Panama knows they were Panama citizens at birth, then McCain knew as well.]

    Did he accept ANY foriegn citizen benefits as an adult or a child? Did he claim ANY foriegn status? NBC did not claim Obama at birth, to be sure. This is really a no-brainer, Obama has clear undisputed entanglements from the start. The potentially most dangerous scenerio is that he not only was born with them, but claimed them as an adult, and claims them to this day!

    We already know that Obama was born with entanglements, so can’t be a NBC. The real question is what Obama has claimed as an adult, and hence the ‘sealed’ records and passport tampering. Find the records, and you will end this.

    Pete

  77. caolila,

    Your sister sounds like a lot of “conservatives” that I’ve talked to about this issue, unfortunately.

  78. Publius states… “In my opinion, the fact that one possesses so-called “dual citizenship” at birth cannot be the sum and substance of an indictment alleging that one lacks eligiblity to hold the office of POTUS. There is simply nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the prior literature that directly and unequivocally disqualifies a dual citizen.”

    Leo, the decision of Judge Burt Smith to deny a security clearance against an applicant described as a 74 year old “native-born American citizen whose parents were born in Ireland.” has relevance to this discussion, right?

    http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/02-21102.h1.html

    The applicant was denied access to classified information based on his dual citizenship status (same as Obama) and failure to forfeit his Ireland passport. He for the sake of getting the clearance also formally stated that “He declares his allegiance is solely to the United States.” Yet, still not enough to convince Judge Smith.

    We don’t know if Obama holds additional passports, nor do we know if he has renounced foreign citizenship(s). He has never told US. I’m not a rocket scientist or a lawyer, but clearly there seems to be question of how Obama has obtained a security clearance. Not just any clearance, but one with access to extremely sensitive highly classified information.

    Yes there is a constitutional crisis here. But just because one wins an election, US citizens should not turn a blind eye to the national security issue. It’s hard to believe that any federal agency responsible for granting him clearance and access would be severely derelict in their duties right now.

    SCOTUS, please define a Natural Born Citizen so the country can move on.

  79. Leo, this wording is vague to me:

    The US State Department has held that persons born on military bases abroad do not become US citizens based upon such birth.

    Persons can refer to locals born on base. Does it specifically say persons born to citizens of the USA?

    [Ed. No US citizenship for anyone born on a military base abroad. If the parents are US citizens then the child is a US citizen by statute, not by the soil of the foreign military base. The FAM published by the Dept of State clearly says that it's a common misconception that persons born on military installations abroad get their citizenship via such birth.]

  80. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Hi Leo,

    It’s Constitution Day and here is what I have to say about it:

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/liberty-is-to-faction-what-air-is-to-fire/

    How about you? Would luv to hear a bit from you on your plight to salvage what is left of it.

    God Bless, Linda

    [Ed. Nice essay. Here's what I wrote at your blog:

    "There is no Constitution. It’s as dead as the men who wrote it."

    I believe that is the truth and that it does not end well for America. Sorry. I just call them as I see them.]

  81. more follow up…

    Leo, natural-born status can only be acquired at birth, not 1day after or many years later, right? Obama is a native-born US citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, right?

    I believe Obama’s situation is just like the poor 74 year old native-born applicant Judge Smith ruled against having a security clearance in 2003.

    Would a 74/yo “dualer-at-birth” with native-born status and no security clearance be eligible to run for POTUS? Not in my opinion. I believe Judge Smith would agree that Jindle should also never be granted a security clearance, never mind being allowed to run for the office.

    Obama was born in the US, no argument here. Who cares that foreign citizenship also acquired at birth may or may not have been lost later in life. Was Obama somehow reborn in 1984?

    If it ever came to it, in my opinion the SCOTUS would agree that Obama is a native-born citizen based on dual citizenship at birth and definitely not a natural-born one as required by A2S1C5.

  82. IceTrey wrote:

    This should be the Dualers rally cry. “By Blood and Soil!”

    It might create unfavorable misunderstanding:
    http://cghs.dadeschools.net/ib_holocaust2001/Ideology_Death/blutandboden.htm

    [Ed. I agree with Joss Brown on this one.]

  83. Joss Brown –

    Prior to our Civil War, the cry instead was “Free Soil.” What was meant was that ‘Liberty’ traveled with American ‘Soil.’

    So, it was American ‘Free Soil’ that gave Dred Scott his best argument, namely — He argued that he was emancipated by the ‘free soil’ of Rock Island, Illinois and Fort Snelling, Minnesota (where he resided for several years). Dred Scott was in the Missouri courts, where Missouri juries agreed with him that ‘free soil’ of Illinois and Minnesota had made him ‘free’ (‘The Missouri Compromise of 1820’), having met the residency required of ‘free white persons.’

  84. blacksunshine84 Says:

    Isn’t there anything you can do to help Orly Taitz? I understand you don’t make the same arguments, but you do want the same thing and she is failing miserably at what appears to be a really chance to prove Obama is ineligible.

    [Ed. Her clients are military and I do not believe they have the best chance at standing. Other cases may be forthcoming featuring better standing and different clients. I do not believe Orly's cases, especially as plead, will determine the issue. But I'm glad she brought these cases because she forced the courts and the DOJ to go on the record with statements they just may regret in future cases which could test them on more difficult legal and PR grounds. That's all I can say at this time.]

  85. Mitchell Staff Says:

    Kittycat,

    Congress doesn’t even read the bills that they vote for. Don’t expect any of them to go out of their way and read a blog or anything other than something in the MSM that might affect their poll numbers. Our country has went from ‘for the people, by the people’ to ‘for the corporate interest, by the corporate interest’. They have sold us out time and time again.

  86. well, it looks like the war is on between you and http://birthers.org.
    may the best legal analysis win.
    i just want the truth, whatever it is.

    [Ed. There's no war... they are just wrong in their analysis. Here's what they said:

    "Today Panama is a country that confers citizenship via jus soli, which if he was born there today would mean that John McCain would not born with only American claims to his allegiance. BUT, in 1936 Panama’s sole principle of birthright citizenship was jus sanguinis. Yes, Panama did include in their Constitution an avenue of Panamanian citizenship John McCain could have used, but it was not an automatic birthright...."

    And here we see another example of non-lawyers professing a false construction of a law. They provide an image to what appears to be an act passed regarding the Panama Constitution. I do not see a link and I cannot verify this act at this time working from my home computer. For the sake of argument we shall analyze the birthers.org analysis assuming that the act they cite to and picture (why no link? I have no idea) is real. Here is what it says:

    "The title of Panaman may be acquired by birth or naturalization...Those born in the Republic of foreign parents shall be called Panamans if within the year following their majority they declare to the Executive Power that they choose Panaman nationality..."

    The proper reading of this is that "by birth" those born in Panama are citizens of Panama and that at the age of "their majority" they will cease to be citizens of Panama unless they make the necessary declaration. This is similar to the Kenyan Constitution and I see no reason to shape an excuse for McCain where people are not willing to shape one for Obama. Clearly, McCain's birth status was governed by the Panama Constitution and that is what makes him ineligible.

    The birthers.org failed to discuss the "age of majority" issue and simply skipped over it just as Factcheck.org skipped over the statutory construction which changed Obama's age of majority declaration deadline.

    I keep telling you, while lawyers will misconstrue statutes at times (whether on purpose or not), lay persons are almost certain to misconstrue them.

    Furthermore, I don't know the source of the alleged Panama Constitution alteration. I don't know if it was enacted or not. Assuming it was, it changes nothing as to McCain's status at birth. His birth in Panama caused his birth status to be governed by Panama and the current Panama Constitution makes it clear that persons born in Panama are Panama citizens. This alleged alteration does not change the status of minors, it simply requires that persons with Panama citizenship make a declaration in order to retain their birth status citizenship.]

    The point is that Panama made no claim to John’s allegiance at his birth, John was born with only the United States of America having a claim to his allegiance.

  87. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,

    It is with a heavy heart that I write this.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quisling

    QUISLING  (kwzlng)
    n.
    A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country.
    [After Vidkun Quisling (1887-1945), head of Norway's government during the Nazi occupation (1940-1945).]
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

    QUISLING
    Noun
    a traitor who aids an occupying enemy force; collaborator [after Vidkun Quisling, Norwegian collaborator with the Nazis]
    Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

    Thesaurus Legend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
    Noun
    QUISLING – someone who collaborates with an enemy occupying force
    collaborationist, collaborator
    traitor, treasonist – someone who betrays his country by committing treason
    Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

    Unaware of the issues discussed in this blog, at the General Election, last year, I campaigned for John McCain and voted for John McCain. I honor his past military service to his Country (USA, rather than Panama). However, at this time due to his action as a ‘Trojan Horse’, that has provided cover for Mr Obama to infiltrate The White House and take control of The USA, and because of McCain’s continued support and protection of Mr Obama, I hereby accuse John McCain of being a QUISLING.

    I call on John McCain, even at this late stage, PUT YOUR COUNTRY FIRST, ADMIT YOUR TREASON and CHALLENGE OBAMA over his Constitutional ineligibility to be President of The United States.

  88. Jimmy The C Says:

    Hi Leo,
    I want to once again thank you for what you are doing to help us preserve what little we have left of the Constitution, if anything.
    I was at the 9-12 March in Washington DC Saturday and one of the speakers was Mr. James Anderer who lost his Chrysler dealership because of Obama’s unconstitutional actions. I just found out that there was a pattern in those chosen to get closed down. They were all contributors to the Republicans and singled out by the then car czar, Steve Ratner, who has since left that position. See this site for more details.
    http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/09/unbelievable-stench-of-ob-ama.html

    I have put a call into Mr. Anderer at his office in Long Island, NY. I want to encourage him to contact you to begin a Quo Warranto case on his behalf, and maybe class action with all those who were closed down as a result of their politics. He will be in at noon. If he calls me back is there a number or e-mail I can give him in order to contact you? (Send to my e-mail)

    Continue the fight Leo, you are a true Patriot.
    Jimmy

    [Ed. I would love to hear from Mr. Anderer or any of the Chrysler dealers. Seriously.]

  89. When you say “…it does not end well for America. Sorry. I just call them as I see them.” If you see the end is not well, what does that “end” entail, generally speaking? Is it one of massive global war or just disintegration and communist takeover?

    [Ed. Imagine now... then extrapolate.]

  90. Leo, in Barnett v Obama, even if judge O’Carter dismisses the Justice Dept.’s “Motion to Dismiss” and allows that case to proceed to discovery, can his dicision can be appealed to the next level up the legal system?

    If so, even if Orly wins a temporary victory, the law will actually not let discovery proceed until the appeal to a higher court has been heard, is that correct?

    [Ed. Of course it can be appealed.]

  91. Leo, Urgent,

    Here’s your chance, please help.
    Orly Taitz
    My third web site was hacked. I can’t post anything at the moment. I just filed a request for stay of deployment of Captain Connie Rhodes MD pending decision on motion for reconsideration. If you are an attorney or paralegal and want to help wit…h drafting, call me at 949-683-5411 or e-mail dr_taitz@yahoo.com Write attorney or paralegal in the heading. I have over 80,000 e-mails and it might get lost otherwise.
    this is orlys direct request from her facebook.

  92. You’re awesome.

  93. I know as a lawyer you will say “no standing”, but by the spirit of this letter I feel he has a wonderful point! It is just that the laws have become so tangled in their deceitful web so well woven!

    Thought people would enjoy the spirit of it…author unknown.

    “Judge Land, Sir:

    I think you did not really see me, standing before you, there, in your courtroom. Let me introduce myself.

    An American citizen, I am BORN with prima facie standing, with the foundational, irrevocable right to documented proof of the identity, eligibility, qualifications, fitness, and professional claims of any and every person elected or appointed to represent my country in any and every official capacity, at any time, and especially when discrepancies or illegalities arise.

    Due to my status as a member of the fourth (and most important) branch of the U.S. government, the PEOPLE., my standing is absolute and intrinsic to my being. My rightful expectation, no, my mandated duty, to vet officials is as inbred as a baby’s expectation of his mother’s milk..

    I am not required by the Constitution to justify, explain, or otherwise jump through judicial hoops in order to assert that right or to fulfill that duty. On the contrary, compliance to thorough vetting procedures is the responsibility of office seekers and office holders.

    To dismiss my already-granted right to view authenticated documentation of eligibility is not an option for a judge acting in accordance with the oath of office. That denial merely reflects an unlawful, bordering on tyrannical, disregard for my guaranteed right.

    Nothing, not lies, cover-ups, counterfeit docs,, malfeasance, skullduggery, judicial dismissals, political and legal maneuvers , loopholes, bullying, resistance, tyrannical posturing, money, backlash, downright unlawful acts by the person claiming the presidency, truly NOTHING, negates my right to know that the president of my country is a natural born citizen and qualified by the Constitution to serve.

    No, the convoluted national antics smoke-screening the facts about the person calling himself Barrak Obama can never change the truth. I, an American citizen, have standing just because I am an American citizen.

    I have the right to know.”

  94. Leo said:

    The US State Department has held that persons born on military bases abroad do not become US citizens based upon such birth.

    Leo, could this be contested all the way to the Supreme Court?

    [Ed. There's probably no standing because there's no irreparable injury since those persons are US citizens by statute anyway.]

  95. Leo,

    The DNC doc certs have more differences. Pelosi is used with C in leagally qual cert and S in the non legally qual cert. The N and P in the leagally qual cert are differ than the without cert. Guess what, remember the spelling of the schoo children from white house admin. No doubt the perpetrator is still active and like you lead the focus, it was a way to squash HI’s obligation to the Constitution. There is more than one fraud here.
    Where is our FBI and CIA? This is not funny, this is a matter of National Security.

  96. Leo,

    I’m puzzled; on two points.

    FIRST: Why does it matter a twit whether or not the country wherein a child is born “has laws that lay claim” on them as a citizen? As I have been reading & understanding the definition of nbc — a person is either born on the soil or they are not. Hence, to be an nbc of the U.S. a child MUST be born on American soil. Ergo, a child born on ANY other country’s soil cannot, by definition, be an nbc of the U.S. of A.; regardless of what laws their birth country might have had at that time. Assuming otherwise just immerses this simple nbc definition into the shake-pit of international laws.

    SECOND: Similarly, while the June 2008 posting by Obama on his website re his being “governed at birth by GB” is a nice solid piece of “proof” — isn’t the issue simply that Obama’s Dad was not a citizen at the time of Obama Jr.’s birth. Doesn’t this then make any arguments re the BNA Act of 1948, etc. nothing more than a side show? In summary, Obama’s Dad was not a citizen at the time of O Jr.’s birth. Period. End of discussion pending, of course, a SCOTUS ruling.

    Again I admit this is coming from a non-lawyer, but aren’t both of these issues (born on soil and to parents, plural, who are citizens) just that simple? I know, you addressed a similar question from me a month ago, but as you can see I am still not entirely clear on what I believe is the heart of this entire matter. Thank you,

    Robare

    [Ed. I agree, but there's a national security policy behind this. And it's to that which I speak.]

  97. whistleblower Says:

    Jenny,

    Many of us have offered to assist Orly. She never replies.

    If she is relying on Yahoo for the security of her email, in a case such as this; she’s an idiot.

    She should have her own server, behind her own firewall, hosting her own mail server. Anything less is irresponsible.

    Given that, by her own admission, this is the third time her website has been hacked, and she’s done nothing to protect herself; she needs to accept a large percentage of the blame.

    I appreciate all her efforts, but she’s in over her head. She needs to accept the help of others before disaster strikes..not after.

    [Ed. She is looking for help. I believe she's listening, but that's not going to solve all the problems these cases have. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is a quo warranto issue and it needs to be taken to the DC District Court and the rules of the statute need to be followed. Orly is not admitted in DC and pro hac vice is not that easy to attain. But that means a local counsel should be retained to file.

    I think Orly's cases are going to be helpful though. She's forced the courts and the DOJ to commit to a certain theory and now some other layers have a much clearer path of attack. So Orly's cases, like Mr. Craig's and all the other cases, while in many ways were certain to be dismissed, still made progress. This is something I have learned and will write about in a blog post. Before I thought these cases were no good for the issue and for PR... but now I'm starting to see that the defective cases have pushed the defendants, courts and the opposing counsel to state on the record various things which they will not be able to run from in the future.

    I've always said that if a case or theory comes along which I believe in, then I will enter the ring again. I don't have anything yet, but I'm looking everywhere.]

  98. billvanallen Says:

    f.y.i.
    – those several Strunk FOIA and warranto cases are alive and still sitting in USDC-DCD in box — with passport visa discovery stayed (Docket 08-2234 DJ Leon) — also an orginal proceeding was filed last week at the DC Circuit still awaiting docketing number.
    The census special three judge district court case is probably the most problematic for the powers at be. (Docket 09-1295 DJ Leon)

    Please consider amicus and/or intervention(s)

    along with quisling issue also see:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manchurian_Candidate

  99. “Inspector General Walpin does not appear interested [in serving as a plaintiff in a QW lawsuit].”

    Since Leo, as a attorney, cannot approach Walpin, surely an ad hoc committee of concerned patriotic citizens with the necessary financial resources could/should approach Walpin and appealing to his patriotism, persuade him to offer himself as the plaintiff in a QW lawsuit.

    Any volunteers?

    [Ed. I can approach a possible client. I just have never done that before. It's not my style. I'd rather not do that, but there's no rule against it either. As long as the lawyer is sincere and represents the truth of the law, there's nothing technically wrong with approaching a potential client. ]

  100. Seizethecarp Says:

    My earlier post…

    In the Keyes case before Judge Carter, if Obama is found ineligible because he is not NBC could Judge Carter “simply” fashion a narrow remedy for Keyes to compensate him for losing to an ineligible candidate and just leave any implications regarding Obama’s position as Potus for Congress and an infomed public to deal with?

    Judge Carter’s announced inclination to deny the DOJ motion to dismiss on Oct. 5 and then proceed to trial requires him to have a remedy in mind for at least one of Orly’s plaintiffs to satisfy a jurisdiction requirement. A finding that Obaama is ineligible and then a narrow remedy for Keyes would not violate the separation of powers regarding removal of the POTUS.

    [Ed. I hate to burst your bubble but that case is not going to end in favor of anyone but Obama.]

    I fully agree that a decision favorable to Obama is the most probable outcome, but we do not know how extensive the discovery will be that Judge Carter seems intent on ordering, not do we know what that discovery will prove.

    Hasn’t a window of opportunity been opened by Judge Carter for a narrow remedy to be fashioned for Keyes (the non-military plaintiff with the most likely standing) if, for instance, the 1964 Kenya certification was authenticated to have come from Obama Sr’s family files, for example from the son of Obama Sr’s third wife who lives in the US? No FRE 902(3) Kenyan authentication (such as required for the Lucas Smith BC) would then be needed, would it?

    This is totally speculative, but such a showing of Obama’s non-NBC status could allow the federal court to declare Obama to be ineligible without recourse to extrajudicial quo warranto or impeachment. Any implications of such a declaration of ineligibility by Judge Carter would be outside the judiciary as required by the Constitution, wouldn’t you agree?

    [Ed. I don't understand your last paragraph. Please explain.]

  101. Leo I quote you here, [Barnett v Obama], if O’Carter dismisses the Justice dept Motion To Dismiss you say:

    “Of course it can be appealed”

    While its being appealed is discovery frozen pending the result of the appeal, or does discovery go on in the background?

    Please excuse the “Capt. obvious Q’s” but the Law is so hard to understand sometimes, especially procedural stuff for lay people like myself.

    My comment on your Mccain topic is that if colon is an exlave [bubble if you like] of pure panamanian territory, the question is not even difficult. Maccain was a Dual Citizen at birth and not an NBC.

    [Ed. It doesn't matter if he was born in the PCZ...that was still Panama national territory. People born there were citizens of Panama.

    Whenever the court orders discovery, the other side has 30-60 days to respond. That's plenty of time to get an appeal answered. You're not going to see any discovery. Not unless its the kind of discovery which completely proves Obama was born in Hawaii. At this point, I would welcome that kind of discovery because it would end the BC issue and the nation could stop being distracted by it and move onto the legal question this blog is concerned with. But if you think there's going to be some meaningful discovery which traps Obama and wins the prize... you are dreaming and your dream will end as a nightmare.]

  102. “I think Orly’s cases are going to be helpful though. She’s forced the courts and the DOJ to commit to a certain theory and now some other layers have a much clearer path of attack. So Orly’s cases, like Mr. Craig’s and all the other cases, while in many ways were certain to be dismissed, still made progress.”

    This makes me think of the military strategy of doing a frontal attack probing for areas of weakness in the defenses of your opponent and/or forcing them to shift their reserves thereby opening up new possibilities that can be exploited. Orly may not be aware of what she is doing in terms of grand strategy, but as you said, her cases may prove to be useful in convincing others of the proper approach to getting a quo warranto case to be filed in the DC District Court as well as countering the DOJ’s defense arguments.

    [Ed. very good analogy.]

  103. Leo Rugeins, can you reach Walpin? I am on the west coast. Walpin, hmn, does that name have meaning.
    Whistle blower and Leo D. you guys are great. Orly is reaching out, and one thing about failure/mistakes the seed is still there.

  104. [Ed. It's long accepted that ambassadors are exempt from citizenship issues. McCain's father was not an ambassador...]

    You avoided the question of whether or not persons born to US ambassadors residing in US embassies abroad are natural born US citizens. No one is “exempt from citizenship issues”.

    [Ed. I see where you are going, but I won't follow you there. Neither Obama or McCain are effected as to eligibility by my answer. If you have a point to make then make it. The floor is yours.]

  105. Leo,

    Thank you for another of our succinct and informative replies. I look forward to learning more re the national security issues.

    Robare

  106. two questions
    1- at the time the Law of Nations , and at the time our Constitution was penned are there any other definitions of natural born citizen stated anywhere???

    2- I am working on getting a database (read plaintiff’s) from last weeks million plus rally of people interested, at least 1000, to file a massive lawsuit asking for damages of 1.2 trillion , the amount that Obama has signed in bills. You wrote above

    ” I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this is a quo warranto issue and it needs to be taken to the DC District Court and the rules of the statute need to be followed. Orly is not admitted in DC and pro hac vice is not that easy to attain. But that means a local counsel should be retained to file.”

    how does one go about finding pro hac vice to represent this suit, and in this particular case would the lawyer have to be a constitutional expert, or can a expert in the area be called in to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs?
    Where would one start this case in your opinion. I am trying to be practical here, so far we have seen the theory spelled out on many blogs, isn’t it time to put it, again, to work after we have seen the many cases and the path forward is becoming clearer?

  107. Seizethecarp Says:

    From my prior post:

    Hasn’t a window of opportunity been opened by Judge Carter for a narrow remedy to be fashioned for Keyes (the non-military plaintiff with the most likely standing) if, for instance, the 1964 Kenya certification was authenticated to have come from Obama Sr’s family files, for example from the son of Obama Sr’s third wife who lives in the US? No FRE 902(3) Kenyan authentication (such as required for the Lucas Smith BC) would then be needed, would it?

    This is totally speculative, but such a showing of Obama’s non-NBC status could allow the federal court to declare Obama to be ineligible without recourse to extrajudicial quo warranto or impeachment. Any implications of such a declaration of ineligibility by Judge Carter would be outside the judiciary as required by the Constitution, wouldn’t you agree?

    [Ed. I don't understand your last paragraph. Please explain.]

    Assume the following: Judge Carter finds Keyes has standing which implies a federal court remedy is available. Carter orders discovery including the 1964 Kenya certification which comes back as being authentic and is acceptable as evidence under FRE. Other discovery shows Obama knew or should have known he was not NBC due to either knowing he was born in Kenya and/or his admission against interest that he was a dual citizen governed by 1948 BNA at birth. Carter orders civil monetary remedy for Keyes based on injury caused by Obama being on ballot as an ineligible candidate. Carter makes no orders respecting Obama’s status as POTUS as that is barred by the Constitution.

    As you have pointed out, the political elite of both parties have collectively ignored the NBC status of both McCain and Obama because the thought they could get away with it. An informed public can change that calculation, as the collapse of healthcare takeover and Acorn demonstrate. A ruling by Judge Carter affirming discovery that Obama is not NBC, even if he dismisses the case after discovery, would inform the public to the point of demanding action, even if the federal judiciary can’t take that action, don’t you agree?

    [Ed. If the Judge orders discovery, it will be a PR victory. If that's your question, you have your answer. Will there ever be any meaningful discovery? Only if that discovery favors Obama.]

  108. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,

    Sometimes, I think you underestimate the ‘head of steam’ that is building amongst the American people on the issue of Mr Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility to act as POTUS. Eventually the pressure will reach the threshold needed to move the engine of rebellion. We The People WILL BE HEARD. The final impetus could well come from adverse reaction by We The People to the lodging of an appeal by Mr Obama’s DOJ henchmen against an order, by someone such as Judge Carter, for discovery, say for Obama’s passport records etc.. Eventually, We The People will say “This has gone far enough, now, let’s have it out – RIGHT NOW”.

    I absolutely hate cover-ups and so, too, do most other Americans. This IS going to blow. We just have to keep building up the pressure from every source and Orly and all of the rest of us are doing a great job to this end. This is a 21st Century rebellion, seeded in 1787 by The Framers of The Constitution. If they were alive today they would be mightily proud of us.

  109. Leo, where am I going wrong here?
    *****************************

    Hypothetical:

    What if a person with Obama or McCain’s exact same citizenship status at birth approached the DNC or RNC and stated that they intend to enter the 2012 presidential election, but they need to know, in lieu of all this still pending controversy, if they will be eligible to legally and legitimately do so….If they absolutely insist on an answer then, it seems to me, the answer would be, yes you are eligible….At that point one could request a citing of the law or statute that grants that eligibility….The object is to get someone of authority on the record.

    Surely there must be some way to force a responsible person, party or group on to the record in an attempt to (unsuccessfully) define NBC.

    It also seems like, since she is a public official of some authority, Dr. Fukino and her statement, which proclaimed that Obama “is a natural born citizen”, could be legally challenged.

    I remember when it first happened that she publicly and officially went on the record and made that bold statement….She has absolutely no authority to make that claim….When it happened, I thought to myself, “Jackpot!!!…We’ve got ‘em now.”…..I totally expected an attorney to be all over that statement like a duck on a June bug but, alas, no one launched a legal challenge…..Isn’t this what we need, a public official to make a public claim in which the term “natural born citizen”
    is used?….Doesn’t that open the door to a well needed legal challenge?

    I guess it doesn’t or someone would have already jumped on Doc Fukino’s statement, right?

    This has been bothering me ever since she went on the record with that blatant misrepresentation….She should be forced, in a court of law, to provide the law that enabled her to make such a bold statement.

    Is it, at this point, necessary to challenge Obama’s eligibility or would a challenge to the official use of the phrase “natural born citizen”, in order to sanitize Obama’s status, be enough to open the flood gates.

    There is always more than one way to skin a cat.

    Where am I going wrong here, Leo?

    [Ed. My answer to you is - go ahead and skin the cat. See how much skin you get. It's quo warranto or no warranto, I'm afraid.]

  110. To Exmil_UK

    If it actually came to that, remember as an officer of the court, a lawyer has to use reasonable care in disclosing whatever they know exists or can be found in a discovery procedure. You cannot “hide” things. You can rest assured that the DOJ lawyers will not fail in their duty. As a fresh legal team they will disclose all that is asked that they can find or have provided to them. They will be able to truthfully say what they do provide is all, to the best of their knowledge and ability, that exists. The cleansing of the records took place long before their involvement without any of their knowledge.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    The Big Boo

  111. Leo, I understand that you are laser focused on quo warranto as the only and correct avenue to challenge the eligibility of Obama and I agree 100% with you, but I feel like you missed the point that I was making.
    ***********************************************************
    [Ed. My answer to you is - go ahead and skin the cat. See how much skin you get. It's quo warranto or no warranto, I'm afraid.]
    ***********************************************************
    I’m NOT suggesting a challenge to Obama’s eligibility, of which would undeniably require a quo warranto action….I was suggesting a legal challenge to the public and official use of the language, “natural born citizen” , by Dr. Fukino in an effort to provide cover for Obama.

    In other words, force a legal definition of NBC…After that, other issues could be settled much easier.

    [Ed. I understand, it's just that who is going to claim an injury and who can say she is wrong? I believe she's wrong but she may believe she is right. You see the problem? How do you create a proper law suit? You need damages.]

  112. Reply to Gary G.

    For the sake of arguement, if Discovery were to include a full version of the redacted report into the accessing of the 3 canditates State Dept. passport files, faking that would be difficult since some members of the senate/house have seen the full original.

    Also, a disposition from one of the technical people from the DOH in Hawaii would be harder to control than the PR spokesperson Fukino. I believe there are still many honest people in that dept sickened by the deception. If they are allowed to speak by a court order for discovery, this whole thing could blow up in Obama’s face.

    If Discovery is allowed by the court, can Orly dispose one of the high level technical people from Hawii DOH before an appeal??

  113. “Beware of bloggers who are not lawyers…”

    Beware of lawyers! It is the den of lawyers in Washington who have brought us to this point! So the non-lawyers of us should just sit back and let you handle it? That has been going on for decades and what do we get for it? A land with a government for, of and by the people where the people have no standing in court with regard to a candidate’s/president’s eligibility?

    I would make a lousy judge/lawyer because I would be unable to make something so simple so complicated.

    [Ed. Statutes are not easy to understand. There is a legalese there - it's a language. If you haven't passed a bar exam, you are probably not qualified to give legal advive. Those who are proclaiming an understanding of the statutes ought to have some humility and stop issuing these blog posts as if they are an expert on statutory interpretation. Obviously, some lawyers are evil, that doesn't mean lay people know how to construe a complicated statute.]

  114. Orly filed an emergency plea on the Rhodes case :

    http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.15.0.pdf

    I must admire her tenacity.

  115. [ ...Neither Obama or McCain are effected as to eligibility by my answer... ]

    It’s not that ambassadors are any more special than military officers representing the United States in parts of the world under the jurisdiction of the US. It’s the same principle that recognizes why ambassadors are 14th Amendment citizens that also recognizes McCain’s NBC status. Military officers didn’t drag their wives along with them from station to station before the 1900s, at least not American military officers, so ambassadors were the type of people operating under the policy during the reconstruction era and earlier which is why they were always referenced as the pertinent example in the old documents and debates.

    Now, I wouldn’t have been inclined to define 14th Amendment citizenship the way Scalia seems to have defined it. My definition of the soil would have been stricter. But it’s practical to expect that Scalia’s definition would be relatively strict compared to the other SC Justices and Scalia would extend 14th Amendment citizenship to persons born to US citizens anywhere under the jurisdiction of the US, in my estimation.

    If we still regard McCain as not qualified for NBC status after those considerations, then it reopens the case for Obama’s status because the 14th Amendment isn’t controlling the matter of constitutional citizenship. It is that 14th Amendment test that disqualifies Obama.

  116. LCpl Mosley Says:

    I hate Mccain I view him to be traitor to the USC and a despicable person. Despite that you are flat out dishonest and wrong about his clearly eleigble NBC status. Where you are born has NOTHING to do with it. Escpecially considering you would be trying to strip away his rights

    [Ed. I'm not stripping him of any rights. Being President is not a right. Not all natural born citizens can be president. If you are 33, you can't be President even if you are nbc. If POTUS eligibility is not avaiable to 33 year old citizens, then that would be discrimination - if it were a "right". It's not. The POTUS requirements are national security measures. McCain has all the rights of being a US citizen. But, like all men under the age of 35, he can't be President. The POTUS requirements were written to reduce the pool of eligible candidates. It's better for America that all those born abroad not be eligible. The policy is obvious. Too bad for McCain. This is about national security and he has caused a severe crisis.]

    on the basis of his father a Commanding Officer or a US military force ORDERED to a NAVAL BASE in Panama for the protection of US territory which is what it was at the time. Sure he was born on US Soil, it does not matter, bot of his parents were US Citizens with no dual loyalties and their presence in the Panama Canal Zone was purely the result of US GOV ORDERS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE US to be there. Thats disgusting trying to take away one’s Consitutional rights because of obeying lawful orders of the CIC to be stationed on a US base.

    My guess you would also try to attack the rights of those Marine children born in Okinawa and Korea and Europe solely on the basis on them being born overseas to US Citizen parents who hapenn to be follwing the ORDERS of the government. That makes no sense in any law or justice and has basis in any argument. Obama had a NON-US CITIZEN parent which makes him uneligible for the POTUS because that makes him not naturally born, aka sole and pure loyalty to the US. The LON does not have anything to do with where you are born but who you are born too. Hence diplomats, military officials, and the like not having their rights and offspring’s rights tripped from them because of some perveted “interpretation” of the law.

  117. Leo,

    Does the following sylbus offer and hope to the Quo Warranto “type” of action….The All Writs Act was supposed to restore those action brought by persons interested, BUT not necessarily those with standing…(as that judicially created doctrine) has come to mean in recent history.

    THe history is much more complete with cases that were instigated by those seeking to “force” the soverign to abide by the law, rather than to allow it to subvert it…and these writs (Prohibition, Warranto, and Certoriori) were initially designed (think concept) to be exercised in the Kings Branch of the Courts of England so that te people could restrain over reaching government action or force compliance with the laws as made.

    PLEASE SEE PARAGRAPH 4 of the following :

    U.S. Supreme Court
    Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Hall, 91 U.S. 343 (1875)
    Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Hall

    91 U.S. 343

    Syllabus

    1. The initial point of the Iowa branch of the Union Pacific Railroad was fixed by the Act of Congress of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489, on the Iowa bank of the Missouri River.

    2. The order of the President of the United States bearing date the seventh day of March, 1864, established and designated in strict conformity to law the eastern terminus of said branch at a point

    “on the western boundary of Iowa east of and opposite to the east line of section 10, in township 15, north of range 13, east of the 6th principal meridian, in the Territory of Nebraska.”

    3. The bridge constructed by the Union Pacific Railroad Company over the Missouri River between Omaha in Nebraska and Council Bluffs in Iowa is a part of tire railroad. The company was authorized to build it only for the uses of the road, and is bound to operate and run the whole road, including the bridge, as one connected and continuous line.

    4. Private persons may, without the intervention of the government law officer, move for a mandamus to enforce a public duty not due to the government as such.

    >>>> What I do not know is if this has been superseded…..

    For further information I found extremely interesting reading in this law review article of some years ago…maybe you’ve seen it and if not maybe it will shed some light on how to “restore” the law of the land….

    http://www.constitution.org/duepr/standing/winter_standing.htm

    Thanks for your dedication to the effort….and please do not ever surrender to these evil forces of greed and ego.

  118. Leo,

    Should have said King’s Bench in the previous post…..

    Since there is NO ONE or NO Office responsible for Article 2 Section 1, the law review article previously mentioned should provide a “legal avenue” thatat least presents an “original action” that must be sent from the lower Courts to SCOTUS to resolve an issue of first impression over an issue that can bbe or should be framed as “absolutely necessary to resolve.” and failure to at least place the “ball” into the right court could be construed as TREASON…..

    Leo, at this point, there at least appears to be enough “evidence” to demonstrate “wrongful conduct” …because of the responses of the defendants and those other documents (ie Pelosi’s multiple versions of democratic party offerings of Candidates) that at least offer
    some proof of a “judicible controversy” do they not ????

  119. Leo -

    What is your response to the words of William Rawle, member of the PA delegation to the Constitutional Convention and PAs first US Attorney:

    “The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. THEREFORE EVERY PERSON BORN WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, ITS TERRITORIES OR DISTRICTS, WHETHER THE PARENTS ARE CITIZENS OR ALIENS, IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IN THE SENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND ENTITLED TO ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES APPERTAINING TO THAT CAPACITY. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that be so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

    http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_09.htm

    Here is one of the founders, a lawyer at the time the Constitution was written (with his assistance and vote)…

    How do you respond to THAT?

    [Ed. Unlike your side's failure to respond to all the evidence we have supplied, ie the framers of the 14th amendment like Bingham, law of nations/Vattel, etc...I will reply. The text you took this from is entitled "A View of the Constitution". Mr. Rawles presents his "view". Clearly, Rawles had the humility to make it known in the title that this treatise was a product of his view.

    Let's not pretend his view was the only view or even the majority view. It most certainly wasn't. If it were the only view, there would not have been a need for SCOTUS decisions like Wong Kim Ark and Minor, Perkins v. Elg, etc. If the Rawles view were the common view, those cases would not have been necessary.

    Understand that it was the US Government contesting the citizenship in those cases of persons born of alien parents on US soil. The US Government.

    Furthermore, Rawles contradicts his view a few paragraphs later when he states:


    No one can suppose that the parent intended, that while he was a permanent citizen of the state, his children should not partake of the same rights, enjoy the same liberty, and be protected be, the same government. Nature itself impresses on the parental mind, a desire to promote the interests of children, and causes it to revolt at the idea of withholding from them what may not only be shared with them, but what also becomes more valuable by being so shared.

    This was analyzing the rights of children of citizens, but what about the rights of foreign parents to convey foreign citizenship upon their children? As he states, nature impresses on the parental mind a desire to promote the child's interest and causes him to revolt at the idea of withholding from them such a thing as selected citizenship or subjecthood. Therefore, it would be directly opposed to that parental nature to take away the power of the parent to convey subjecthood or citizenship in another nation.
    The child can possibly be a dual citizen... and perhaps in Rawles' view such a dual citizen should be considered natural born... but Rawles would be wrong about that.

    The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated that the native born child of an alien is not natural born. The child was a citizen and the US Government had to accept Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, but the court indicated he was not natural born.

    You seem all hot and bothered that one person from history sees it your way, but you don't seem interested in acknowledging all those from history who do not. Typical.]

  120. [Ed. I understand, it's just that who is going to claim an injury and who can say she is wrong? I believe she's wrong but she may believe she is right. You see the problem? How do you create a proper law suit? You need damages.]
    *********************************************************
    Thanks Leo….My question has been answered.

  121. Since NBC has never been clearly defined by the SCOTUS, could not any US born citizen regardless of the parent(s) citizenship stake a claim to NBC status as Obama has in calling himself the POTUS? No, but is only my opinion.

    But my point is… for national security, at what point in our government or party system is the line drawn that all agree on its face clearly discriminates against a US soil born citizen (born of 1 or 2 parents abroad) from running for the office?

    If a US soil born citizen has ever been keep off a ballot because some government or party official told them they did not meet the NBC requirement, how did the government or party official legally determined their NBC status?

    When discussing the President’s eligibility and national security, for me it comes down to nothing more than a security clearance. If a US born citizen is ineligible to obtain a security clearance because of a dual citizenship status… then one is clearly not eligible to run for the office of President and CinC.

    For national security reasons alone, Obama should not be holding a security clearance. Not even one that allows access to unclassified info that is deemed sensitive. He has never renounced any foreign citizenship(s) that we know of. What legal basis did the investigative body use to determine his eligibility for a clearance? I don’t know, but would really like some answers.

    FactLessCheck.org I know your listening… You alone put this guy in office with your deception, please answer the question.

  122. Slamdunk Says:
    September 16, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    I submit that we make the distinction between “birthers,” those who focus on where Obama was born, and “borners,” those who focus on the far more important issue of him not being a natural born citizen.

    [Ed. We've already done that - but the term is Dualers.]

    Doesn’t “dualer” have specific reference to someone born under dual jurisdictions (territorial)?. “Borner” is parental. I like “borner.” :)

    [Ed. Obama was born under dual jurisdiction. Borner sucks.]

  123. In addition, Obama aligned himself with an organization during and after the election which has been associated with and is now being investigated for criminal activity. His close ties with this organization should be reason enough his security clearance is immediately revoked.

    Haven been in the US military for 20 years, I have seen security clearances pulled for much less.

  124. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19851986/KEYES-v-OBAMA-66-MINUTES-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-granting-60-Ex-Parte-Application-for-Order-for-Limited-Stay-of-Discovery-

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. SACV 09-0082 DOC (ANx) Date: September 16, 2009

    Title: CAPTAIN PAMELA BARNETT, ET AL. V. BARACK H. OBAMA, ET AL. DOCKET ENTRY

    “Defendants have alleged that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for various reasons, including that the case presents a non-justiciable political question that is properly addressed by the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. Defendants Motion to Dismiss at 11. The political question doctrine excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the halls of Congress or the confines of the Executive Branch”.
    “The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery. All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is necessary for the purpose of opposing the Motion to Dismiss”.
    “Magistrate Judge Nakazato who handles discovery matters, is the arbiter of whether the discovery has relevance to subject matter jurisdiction”.

    Leo, what are your views on this hypothetical line of attack on this specific discovery issue as a means of getting the DOJ on record and thereby limiting their room for manoevre in the future?

    Plaintiffs assert that the issue of the Article II, s.1, cl.5 eligibility of Barack Obama and John McCain was not formally put to the ‘Electors’ of The Electoral College. They were not informed of the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’ in The Constitution, nor were they provided with any evidence on this matter, nor were they informed that it was one of their duties to assess whether or not Mr Obama satisfied the requirement to be a ‘natural born Citizen’.

    Plaintiffs assert that the legal merits of the issue of the Article II, s.1, cl.5 eligibility of Barack Obama have not been decided by any Judicial process.

    Plaintiffs assert that Vice-President Dick Cheney did not raise this issue at the Senate confirmation of the Electoral College vote – nor did he allow adequate opportunity for objections from the Senate about the Electoral College vote.

    Plaintiffs assert that the Constitutional ineligibility of Mr Obama is a legal matter of first impression and not a matter of ‘policy choices and value determinations’.

    Plaintiffs demand disclosure by the Department of Justice of any documentary evidence, that they have, to refute these assertions.

    In the absence of any such evidence from the DOJ, Plaintiffs contend that the issue of whether or not Mr Obama is a ‘natural born Citizen’ is justiciable by this Court, every other option having been omitted.

    [Ed. I think it's going to be dismissed because it's not in the DC District Court as a quo warranto under the statute enacted by Congress. This is what the defense claimed in the MTD as well.]

  125. L Cpl Mosley & Leo:

    In addition to Leo’s interpretation of the Panamanian statute, there’s also this from 7 FAM 1139:

    “a. Congress has enacted special legislation governing the conditions under which U.S. citizenship may be acquired by birth in Panama (see also 7 FAM 1120 for legislation relating to the Canal Zone). This legislation does not apply to all children born in Panama, but only to those born to U.S. citizens employed by the U.S. Government or the Panama Railroad Company. Section 303(b) INA (8 U.S.C. 1403(b)) states that: Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904,
    and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or
    mother or both at the time of birth of such person was or is a citizen of
    the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by
    the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be
    a citizen of the United States.”

    … which would seem to put another hurdle for McCain to jump as this appears to say he is a statutory citizen.

    [ed. True.]

  126. May I summarize?

    John Mc Cain is not a “Natural Born Citizen,” because of his place of birth. He was born in the territory of the Republic of Panama, which confers Panamanian citizenship on those born within its jurisdiction, which status he never renounced. Panama claimed him as a citizen, despite the citizenship of his American parents. Thus, he is a dual citizen to this day.

    Barack Hussein Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen” because he was not born of 2 (two) America citizens. Furthermore, the laws of his father’s country conferred British citizenship on the young Obama, making him, at the very most, a dual citizen.

    Thus he would hold dual citizenship if he were found to have been born in Kenya, or if he were born in Hawaii.

    [Ed. Incorrect. If he were born in Kenya, he would not have been a US citizen as his mother would not have been able to confer US citizenship upon him were he born abroad according to US law in 1961.]

    The status of his parents’ individual citizenships having been publicly acknowledged, why is the “Long Form Birth Certificate” necessary to prove that he is not a “Natural Born Citizen?” Why is it necessary to establish where he was born, at all?

    It would seem that Team Obama’s Legal Department has seized upon this “Birth Certificate Issue” with a fervor and enthusiasm at least equal to that of the plaintiffs bringing suit to demand its placement in evidence. Is this because they know it to be a legal blind alley in which they can confuse the issue for years until Obama leaves office in 2012, after getting the boot from Hillary in the primaries?

    I am sorry. I know that the Constitution has been seriously weakened. I know that there are serious consequences … all bad …. to that. But where is the remedy? The Constitution requires a “Natural Born Citizen,” without making what that is clear. What’s more, there is no mechanism or process for establishing the status of Presidential candidates.

    The Congress and The Electoral College have the responsibility of qualifying candidates. That is what they did. They certified Obama as President and gave him a majority vote in the Electoral College. In effect, it appears to me that they have established what a “Natural Born Citizen” is.

    In regard to the representations made to the States’ Attorneys General: the certifications were no different for Obama, than they were for Kerry or Gore. How can a case be made there? Sue the Attorneys General of 49 states for gross neglect and misfeasance in office? Not bloody likely.

    My greatest fear is that this is just going to slide away in 2012, and we will be left with a situation in which any citizen of any kind, “Native Born,” (even of illegal alien parents), Naturalized, Dual, and In the Process, will be eligible to run for President as a Civil Right. One presumes (or hopes) that an actual “Natural Born Citizen,” will still also be eligible.

    I can easily see that La Justicia Sotomayor, and the 2 or 3 next Obama SCOTUS picks, will have no trouble making all citizens equal in this regard.
    Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.’s completed term in office will mean that the concept of “Natural Born Citizen” will be dead, and thus the rest of the Constitution enfeebled.

  127. Mitchell Staff Says:

    Leo,

    I have been referring to us as dualers in other blogs where the NBC issue has come up. I agree with you that ‘borner’ sucks. It would be easily twisted by the opposition with a simple dropping of the 1st r.

    [Ed. :) ]

  128. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,

    [Ed. I think it's going to be dismissed because it's not in the DC District Court as a quo warranto under the statute enacted by Congress. This is what the defense claimed in the MTD as well.]

    My point is that Orly should try to get as much as possible out of the DOJ in the Barnett case, by using the hypothetical line of attack (that I mentioned in my previous post) on this specific discovery issue as a means of getting the DOJ on record and thereby limiting their room for manoeuvre in the future.

    Also wouldn’t it be useful if Judge Carter could be persuaded to give a specific ruling pointing all of these eligibility cases to the DC Court to be determined under the Quo Warranto provisions?

    Could Judge Carter adjourn the case in his Court ‘with liberty to restore’, pending the outcome of the Quo Warranto proceedings, possibly issuing advice to the parties in the meantime? If the Senate can issue ‘non-binding resolutions’ then why can’t Judge Carter? He might say, for example, that it would be advisable for the sake of the ‘good order’ of the military, pending the outcome of the Quo warranto proceedings, for Mr Obama to allow the disclosure of his long-form birth certificate and other ‘vital records’ by the Dept of Health in Hawai’i and also his passport records etc..

    If Orly doesn’t ask, then she won’t get – and Judge Carter, being a former Marine, might understand the importance of having confidence in the legitimacy of orders handed down from the Commander in Chief, and therefore might be minded to offer some ‘non-binding’ advice to Mr Obama. If Obama ignores such advice, then he will pay a further heavy price in terms of public opinion.

    [Ed. It doesn't work like that. if he has no jurisdiction he will dismiss the case.]

  129. Boner? That’s not as bad as some of the other things we’re called. Birther isn’t too far from brothel. My only point was that dualer doesn’t capture the most important part of the meaning of natural born citizen – birth by both U.S. parents.

  130. The detriments of living in a society with a short attention span are as obvious as are the benefits of having virtually all of the national media under one’s thumb. The dynamics of the fickle public interest and the masterful exploitation of ignorance are largely the reason we are where we are today. Unfortunately, a legal system that operates in a vacuum of public awareness can do pretty much what it wants to do.

    But the tide is turning. Waves of supporters, feeling themselves fleeced, are abandoning the illusion. It seems that someone has noticed that, indeed, the emperor has no clothes.

    Clearly there are differences in opinion on the merits of the challenges, but in the end there is a consensus among growing numbers of Americans that the (alleged) president is not their friend. The mudsling press will be dragged to that truth kicking and screaming, but eventually, if they are forced to, they will begin to tell some of it. The courts, understanding they will be held accountable will have to follow the law.

    I understand that some avenues of communication exist between Leo and Orly. That can only be a good thing. Thanks to all for all you are doing.

  131. Leo, you said:

    …we now have Obama and McCain can’t challenge on Quo Warranto because he has no moral authority to challenge…

    What about Sarah Palin?

    Or Mike Huckabee, or Hillary Clinton, who both lost their party’s nomination to an ineligible candidate?

    [Ed. Not Sarah Palin...and the other two are not going to do it. ]

  132. Hi, Leo:

    Hope you’re doing okay today. I have a question for you. You continue to mention “quo warranto” all the time. So my question is this: Didn’t you do this with Cort’s case, and if not, then why?

    [Ed. He wasn't President when we brought Cort's case to SCOTUS and Cort has no standing better than anyone else for qw.]

    Also, would it be too late to do this, and I also want to ask, how could some attorneys do the quo warranto?

    I know you don’t want to go back to that, but I don’t really understand why a quo warranto. I’m not a legal mind, even though I work on depositions and/or court trials in editing.

    thanks

  133. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,

    What do you think about taking advantage of Judge Carter’s Order for limited discovery – “The Court hereby GRANTS Defendants Ex Parte Application for Limited Stay of Discovery. All discovery herein shall be stayed pending resolution of Defendants Motion to Dismiss, except for any discovery as to which Plaintiffs can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Magistrate Judge Nakazato, is NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPPOSING THE MOTION TO DISMISS”. Surely there is SOME scope here for forcing SOME information out of the DOJ?

    [Ed. Excellent question. See my next blog post.]

  134. [Ed. He wasn't President when we brought Cort's case to SCOTUS and Cort has no standing better than anyone else for qw.]

    Now I do remember that, Leo. But what could happen for an attorney to do this? I guess that’s my next question. Is it just an attorney who does this or does he have a client or whatever? I.e., can an attorney just do this?

    [Ed. no. The Attorney General could or the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, but last time we tried that, the dude just resigned.]

  135. Joe The Blogger said:

    It is with a heavy heart that I write this.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quisling

    QUISLING (kwzlng)
    n.
    A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country.
    [After Vidkun Quisling (1887-1945), head of Norway's government during the Nazi occupation (1940-1945).]


    Unaware of the issues discussed in this blog, at the General Election, last year, I campaigned for John McCain and voted for John McCain. I honor his past military service to his Country (USA, rather than Panama). However, at this time due to his action as a ‘Trojan Horse’, that has provided cover for Mr Obama to infiltrate The White House and take control of The USA, and because of McCain’s continued support and protection of Mr Obama, I hereby accuse John McCain of being a QUISLING.

    I call on John McCain, even at this late stage, PUT YOUR COUNTRY FIRST, ADMIT YOUR TREASON and CHALLENGE OBAMA over his Constitutional ineligibility to be President of The United States.

    Joe,
    You are correct. And as hard as it is to face that truth, it is necessary. I don’t want to write a lot about it here, but I’ve written a lot about it over the last 20 months on my own blog. If you’re interested, start here: McCain a Choice? More Like an Echo

  136. Leo, Can McCain now make quo warnto. Maybe he’ll redeem himself. Will consider it even though your expertise has little regards for McCain. But still it is a scenario.

    [Ed. Oh dear... this is a joke right?]

  137. beyond baffled Says:

    Leo,

    You have seen Glenn Beck’s show asking for 56 congressmen in DC to expose corruption? He has 1 as of today. How many does he need to fight the eligibility issue? Tell me only 1… : )

  138. [Ed. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated that the native born child of an alien is not natural born. The child was a citizen and the US Government had to accept Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, but the court indicated he was not natural born.]

    Leo,

    Strong words from the SCOTUS saying what is not natural born. Although NBC not specifically defined by SCOTUS, can findings be read in opposite and legal conclusions made by doing so? Hypothetical example from your comment above with opposite added:

    The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark indicated that native-born children of an alien parent is not natural born, therefore those who are native-born of a non-alien parent is natural born.

    Can any enforceable legal assumptions be made by doing that?

    [Ed. The holding was in English and it clearly did not say that Wong Kim Ark was natural born in a very long holding which does mention natural born, so if the court had intended to state he was natural born then they would have. Instead they chose language indicating he was not. It seems very enforceable to me.]

  139. Leo

    Your logic regarding McCain is faulty for the following reason:

    Youre using the rules of other nations (ie Panama) to dictate natural born citizenship. Whether Panama or Britian or any other nation states that you COULD be a citizen or not should be immaterial to your American citizenship.

    I’ll give you an example I was born in the US both my Parents are citizens (obviously natural born) I have never asked to be anything but a US citizen yet since my grandparents were Irish citizens and my parents applied for me to a Irish citizen so I could have that option before I was 18. I never took it when I was 18 but I was before that

    Am I not a natural born citizen? How does rules in Ireland negate my natural born citizen status? I was natural born and never willingly revoked it ?

    [Ed. Your analysis is juvenile. See various reports, comments and the like dissecting this very argument. over and again. It's not correct. Other countries have laws and our nation respects those laws, just ask Obama's state department.]

  140. Truth Exists (Paulajal) Says:

    Leo, I’m an attorney, but not practicing anymore. I’m now teaching (much more rewarding!) Anyway, when you’ve talked about people who would have standing for quo warranto, you’ve only mentioned a couple of people who alas, are not interested. You’ve also stated that you would like to talk to a person who might have standing. Okay, here comes the teacher in me. You have a lot of readers, but they might not have the perspective or imagination that you have to know who would be a possible cannidate for the case. How about doing some brainstorming on this blog so as to give us a wider range of possibilities, so that we can see if we can find you a nice juicy client?

    [Ed. Stay tuned...]

  141. Should be interesting- Excerpt: Sept. 17, 2009) — U.S. Federal District Judge David Carter (Central District of California, Southern Division) has granted the Defense’s request to limit discovery, prior to his consideration of their Motion to Dismiss, on the grounds that said motion regards issues which rightfully limit discovery, in Barnett vs. Obama. http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/judge-carter-limits-discovery-in-barnett-vs-obama/ Personally,I think this is for the grand show.The MTD will most likely be dismissed,as the stay of the defense was granted,indicating the judge is going to accept the statutes and cases cited as opposed to chucking the game and upholding the oragaic Con.,but we never know.I do think this is drawing us in as planned.Not trying to be a defeatists,just a realist.The case going this far is telling.Had this been QW with an interested party I would be more optimistic.Still,it’s good that some discovery will be forthcoming regardless of what transpires.It is ammunition for those of us that are cognizant that the drama is well stage managed and controlled.They might overreach with their vanity and arrogance at this game.

  142. I realize how you feel about Orly’s case…but this was interesting…
    The bottom half of the WND article about Judge James Robertson and the attorney John D. Hemenway 82. I thought the attorneys thought process was more than intriguing and if it possibly could be a way to force some kind of discovery. Didn’t Judge Carter refer to some heresay references for his basis of dismisal (nothing based on evidence) and in calling it frivolous?

    —————————————————————-
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110137

    Motion: Judge follows ‘illegitimate chain of command’
    Document alleges evidence ‘courts are subject to external control’

    ——————————————————————————–
    Posted: September 17, 2009
    5:43 pm Eastern

    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    The judge who dismissed a complaint by Capt. Connie Rhodes, the medical doctor and Army officer who wanted a restraining order to prevent her overseas deployment on the basis President Barack Obama has not demonstrated himself to be a natural-born citizen under the U.S. Constitution, has been accused of exhibiting “subservience” to that “same illegitimate chain of command.”

    Orly Taitz, the California attorney handling many of the lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility, filed a request today on behalf of Rhodes for reconsideration of the dismissal, even though she was threatened by the judge with sanctions.

    “Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto president is not even nominally the commander-in-chief of the Article III Judiciary,” the request said.

    [Ed. snipped long article...please use link above for more....]

  143. From Redstate, interesting, I guess he does not understand. Per his post, he “used” to be a lawyer. How do you “used” to be a lawyer? Retirement?, or if one loses too many cases? : )

    Judge Clay Land: Great American Hero

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

    Wednesday, September 16th at 1:10PM EDT
    64 Comments

    Clay Land is a Federal Judge in the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division.

    He is a Bush appointee and a solid guy. When I was a lawyer we has some interaction.

    Today, he threw out Connie Rhodes’s lawsuit. That lawsuit is the one filed claiming Rhodes cannot be deployed to Iraq because Barack Obama is “not constitutionally eligible to act as Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces.”

    According to Judge Land, “After conducting a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. Accordingly, her application for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is denied, and her Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions.”

    Also, Judge Land notes, “Plaintiff’s counsel is a self-proclaimed leader in what has
    become known as ‘the birther movement.’”

    I love that he called it the Birther movement and I love that he said he’d impose sanctions if the lawyer even attempts to bring this back up in his court.

    Clay Land is a great American hero.

  144. If Judge Carter grants the Motion to Dismiss, it will presumably be for the reason that he lacks jurisdiction over a “political” matter, per his statement that “The political question doctrine excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the halls of Congress or the confines of the Executive Branch.”

    But it seems to this non-lawyer that Obama’s eligibility is a constitutional question rather than a political question of “policy choices and value determinations.” It is a question of what the Constitution says and whether what the Constitution says matters a tinker’s damn; it is not a matter of political “policy choices.”

    Could Orly appeal a dismissal because the judge falsely characterized what the Constitution means as a political question? It’s a legal question, it seems to this layman.

    [Ed. No. There is a genuine separation of powers issue.]

  145. Mitchell Staff Says:

    Slamdunk,

    I didn’t mean to make you feel bad about your suggested name it’s just that I have been on these blogs long enough to know that you can’t give the people who are opposed to the NBC question any easy way of denegrating us. They really follow the Alinsky playbook and gang up on us. We did not choose the ‘birther’ name, it was given to us. The first time I heard it was in an article on AOL. Do you know that on blogs throughout the internet people are under the impression that the tea party protesters actually call themselves ‘teabaggers’. I’m sure you know the origins of that term.

    I like ‘dualer’ because it could be construed with dueler, a positive term with the connotation that we are fighters.

  146. GratefulForLeo Says:

    Troy at
    September 17, 2009 at 12:34 pm
    has an interesting idea in seeking to force a definition of natural born citizenship from a public official. Forcing a federal court would be better.

    What if a civil case was brought in federal court that involved a requirement of natural born citizenship as an issue of resolution?

    For instance, a contract can be based on almost any lawful terms or conditions to which the parties agree. What if a contract is made in which defendant promises to pay plaintiff a sum of money if (a) plaintiff performs a service and (b) proves he meets the contractual qualification of being a natural born citizen. The contract could even state that disputes as to definition of terms is left to the court to resolve.

    Plaintiff asserts he is a natural born citizen, signs the contract, and performs the service. Defendant refuses to pay because plaintiff cannot prove he is a natural born citizen to defendant’s satisfaction. The court would have to define natural born citizenship as a matter of law before a determination could be made on the facts of the case. If the parties were from different states, jurisdiction would be in the federal district court under diversity jurisdiction. No issue of standing, no issue of jurisdiction, no political pressure, no way out for the court to dismiss the case.

    If this is successful, we would then have a federal court definition of natural born citizenship with which to use in future cases. It would be the proverbial foot in the door.

    [Ed. Not gonna work. move on.]

  147. MCCASKILL, LEAHY, COBURN, CLINTON, WEBB, All of CONGRESS including MY OWN! Representativ Lynn A. Westmoreland, Senator Saxby Chambliss, Senator Johnny Isakson, they all make – Benedict Arnold – ‘Look Good’!

    Blame the Democratic and Republican National Parties!
    Obama, the United States President who wasn’t.

    Above is my header on my obama page and if you click on that header it takes you here: http://www.si.umich.edu/spies/people.html#arnold

    Now you can compare John McCain to Benedict Arnold and I think Mr. Arnold is looking better than what we have today.

  148. undeadrevolution Says:

    William Rawle was not a Founder, nor even a delegate to the constitutional convention, jvn. (sent you some historian’s findings about him, Leo). His step-father was a British loyalist. He was schooled in Middle Temple, London. While an attorney, he tried to apply English common law to a federal case and the judge practically laughed in his face. There is no proof he was even appointed by Washington. He is not even mentioned in the Elliot’s debates.

    He’s a nobody who wrote a book and has lousy, suspect credentials of being a British enthusiast. Good luck trying to find a credible authority who agrees with his unsourced opinions.

  149. undeadrevolution Says:

    William Rawle was not a Founder, nor even a delegate to the constitutional convention, jvn. (sent you some historian’s findings about him, Leo). His step-father was a British loyalist. He was schooled in Middle Temple, London. While an attorney, he tried to apply English common law to a federal case and the judge practically laughed in his face. There is no proof he was even appointed by Washington. He is not even mentioned in the Elliot’s debates.

    He’s a nobody who wrote a book and has lousy, suspect credentials of being a British enthusiast. Good luck trying to find a credible authority who agrees with his unsourced opinions.

  150. Leo, great work as always.

    I can’t get over the “McCain is a nbc” supporters here. As you have replied to them, see the State Department.

    Well, let me help them by providing direct links to:
    7 FAM 1116.1-4 Not Included in the Meaning of “In the United
    States” http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

    McCain supporters, Read c. in the above three times aloud.

    Then read “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency”
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    Particulary read a. and d. abov aloud three times.

    And as for the 1790 Naturalization Act.. tread that too. especially the part where those children born “beyond sea.. . ‘shall be considered as” natural born. Notice that wording. Those children are not natural born citizens.. but through this Naturalization (look up the definition of that word) Act.. they are “shall be considered as”.

    My neighbor and his wife have been so very kind to me since I was a kid, that they are considered as my uncle and aunt…. but we are not related.

  151. Voco Indubium Says:

    RE: ” It has always been my belief that McCain’s NBC problem gave Obama all the cover he needed. …. [Ed. McCain provided cover for Obama's eligibility. Exactly.] : Gary Welsh Says: September 16, 2009 at 7:32 pm ”

    I usually agree with Leo’s analysis but respectfully disagree on this issue.

    The key question is why the GOP did not object at the joint-session of Congress at the Elector’s confirmation hearing.

    McCain was history at that point. The resolution with regard to McCain’s nbc status was a totally mute issue. The GOP could only gain by objecting and loose nothing (as they lost the election already).

    You said: “[Ed. McCain provided cover for Obama's eligibility. Exactly.] “ This cover was a very weak moral cover if any, without any legal protection. Both parties routinely ignore, not only such flimsy “covers”, but heavy duty promises as well, and reverse themselves frequently on major policy issues. This is just the rules of the game.

    Furthermore, McCain, in spite of his very faulty campaign and inability to think rationally, is considered an “American Hero”, whereas his opponent would not be able to get a routine security clearance. Also, as Hillary said once during the campaign her opponent did not have “American roots.”

    So even if the GOP had any moral obligation to avoid the nbc issue that obligation was insignificant and easily reversible without spending political capital.

    There are only two possible answers for not objecting:

    1. Utmost stupidity of the GOP leadership leading to self defeat;

    2. As Michael Savage said a few months back (more than once, very seriously): “McCain’s job was to throw the election to his opponent. “

    There are no other alternatives. On the final analysis the GOP is responsible for the current situation. The objection would have forced SCOTUS to rule on nbc without delay and with no cost. Standing and other technicalities would not be problems. Now after 50 or so lawsuits we find that the Constitution is 99.9% unenforceable, if one can optimistically assign 0.01% chance of probability for Quo Warranto.

    [Ed. Sir. Please. This is ridiculous. Do you not see the convenience provided to Obama by having mCcain as the opposing candidate? Give me a damn break already on this McCain bull. Only McCain had the best possible standing in a quo warranto. Now how the hell is McCain ever going to oppose OBama's eligibility having been born in Panama.

    Enough on this. McCain was not eligible and he knew it and he has hurt this nation...possibly mortally wounding it forever.]

  152. francisthinks Says:

    Leo,

    Thank you fro de-emotionalizing the issues.

    However, this is not a pretty picture. The President of he Senate, presiding over the vote of The Electoral College, made a procedural error of monumental proportions in not calling for objections. Perhaps worse, not one of the Electors questioned his lapse.

    Furthermore, in the months that have passed since the vote, not one elected representative of either party has publicly voiced any concern. Most, if not all, endorsed Senator Leahy’s (and Senator Obama’s!) inane resolution supporting McCain’s eligibility. Surely one constitutional expert must have brought this to someone’s attention before the vote. I truly have a hard time considering Dick Cheney has part of some monstrous cabal, even with my background as a student of Burr’s various plots!

    What is your opinion of the value of having state legislatures pass eligibility laws requiring documentary and constitutional proof of eligibility before allowing Presidential Candidates on a state ballot, or directing denial of their Electoral votes, for failure to comply?

    Time is of the essence. 2012 will be upon us and my prediction is that while all of the cases at law proceed at a snail’s pace, our ineligible President will slide, even if not gracefully, into the history books.

    My idea is that with a strong body of state laws, we could help guarantee that this would not, or could not happen again.

    FT

    [Ed. You'll not get a review of Obama's eligibility that way. The precedent will have already been set if it goes to the next election without being resolved.]

  153. [...] that order, one of my astute readers (Joe The Blogger) asked the following question which led me to write this [...]

  154. Leo, I am very glad you are still working on this case. I mostly follow your reasoning on Natural Born, except regarding McCain. Perhaps you could explain why he could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen even though he was born in Panama territory. Based on The Law of Nations:
    § 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
    For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
    This seems to cover McCain as Natural Born. Perhaps you have answered this question previously–if so forgive me for asking.
    Best Regards.

    [ed. that doesn't mean his citizenship birth is "natural born".]

  155. Voco Indubium Says:

    Leo,

    RE: “[Ed. Sir. Please. This is ridiculous. Do you not see the convenience provided to Obama by having McCain as the opposing candidate? Give me a damn break already on this McCain bull. Only McCain had the best possible standing in a quo warranto. Now how the hell is McCain ever going to oppose OBama's eligibility having been born in Panama. Enough on this. McCain was not eligible and he knew it and he has hurt this nation...possibly mortally wounding it forever.]”

    Please allow me to answer sentence by sentence:

    1. “[This is ridiculous. Do you not see the convenience provided to Obama by having McCain as the opposing candidate?”

    Yes, that was part of my point – no argument there. “

    2. “Only McCain had the best possible standing in a quo warranto. “

    Yes, of course but McCain will never be a plaintiff for QW. He endorsed his opponent, during the campaign, in the warmest manner. Also, even a few weeks ago he defended the President at a town-hall-meeting. One of your readers posted a video on this very website how McCain corrected a woman who dared to raise a negative point on the President. So the idea that McCain initiates a QW is a 100% academic exercise. It has zero practical value. I think you yourself pointed that out to a reader as well.

    3. “Now how the hell is McCain ever going to oppose OBama's eligibility having been born in Panama.”

    He will never do that, please refer to #2.

    4. “McCain was not eligible and he knew it and he has hurt this nation...possibly mortally wounding it forever.]”

    There is no proof that he knew it. If you reread my original comments I said that he is incapable of relational thinking. Also, if he knew it, like his opponent, he may have thought that he could pull it off with the Congress’ non-binding-resolution or otherwise, as the Constitution has not been taken seriously by any branch of the government in recent years.

    If he knew it, was that a mortal sin? Yes of course – agreed. A typical sin for a selfish politician.

    Your emphasis is on McCain’s eligibility as plaintiff for QW. I may have misinterpreted the expression McCain’s providing “cover” for his opponent. You meant for the QW – for that I agree.

    However, my main point was that even if a “cover” existed at the joint session of Congress in January 2009, the GOP could have raised objection. McCain was out of the game for good, at that point, and the GOP could have raised the objection, without any risk of further loss.

    The objection would have been directed to BHO’s eligibility, not McCain’s. SCOTUS would not even discuss the resolution in favor of McCain, because it was not binding and because not McCain’s eligibility was in question.

    Even if the Dems raised that issue in the public eye, saying we accepted McCain with imperfect nbc now we must accept BHO with equally imperfect nbc, the GOP could have replied very effectively with the American Hero argument. Any such debate would not have affected SCOTUS’ ruling – such arguments would have been only PR arguments.

    In conclusion, I agree that McCain was a terribly wrong candidate. However the blame is on GOP for his nomination. Failing to object at the electors confirmation hearing was an even more fatal mistake, again due to the GOP, not to McCain alone, as he was powerless and out of the picture by that time. That is where the battle was lost.

  156. Leo, This is on another blog that I visit and written by a person called Black Eagle, and I know that your last part of this last post was that we should all beware of people claiming to know waht is right and what is not, but, I thoght that maybe since you have had experience with the “Standing” Issue, that you might want to look into this a bit more, as it seems to say that WE ALL HAVE STANDING, which I think, at the very root of the problem about Obam and his running an illigitimate campaign and based on the final outcomes, I tend to think that thim person might have hit on something that is relevant to the objective of us using that Standing as agood purpose and make sure that the Courts know that many of us are emotionally upset for good reason, that Obama ran without being vetted or stopped by the people that should have known better and were entrusted to protect our sensitivities…..

    Here is the post:
    QuoteReply We all have STANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I have hollered, begged,screamed for a year on how we all have standing – read the attached (taken from the legal definition of standing) ————-Keyes, (if someone can get this to the overzealous Orly and she can slow down for 5 minutes and absorb it, would shoot down anything barry’s attorney’s can say), as well as all of us were hurt – for emotional pain is valid is it not? – in that when we cast our ballots we are doing so in the belief that we are participating in a democratic process – our right to vote and that our vote be used in a meaningful way regardless if we vote for whomever wins or loses in that given election in which we vote in. Anything less constitutes fraud and disillusions us as to our cherished civil liberties. Therefore we have suffered emotional injury (invasion of a legally protected interest as noted in #1 of the definition of standing below) and therefore we have STANDING!

    [Ed. Essentially, this is what the pleadings in the Kerchner case say... but it's tailored to liberty, not emotional suffering. We shall see how that goes, but according to the Federal case law on standing, it's not going to go well. I agree we should have standing but if you make the argument this blogger makes, you are going to be dismissed. Emotional aspects aside, the courts have rigged it so that in order to have standing, we must have an injury which stands out from the rest of a large group of citizens.]

    —————————————————–
    STANDING – The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person
    must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

    There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

    In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx’s declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).

    Standing is founded “in concern about the proper–and properly limited–role of the courts in a democratic society. ” Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he “is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that “federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.’ ” Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity
    , 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.

    Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief “must show `a very significant possibility’ of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit.” Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
    State TX

  157. Pete says; My gut tells me that children of parents serving at the behest of the US government oversees, should not be punished for their parents service.

    I too had the same feeling and from the following I now think that mccain is NB. Back before we were “bush whacked” I watched the republican debates, mccain acted like a 5th grader, smirking and looking over his shoulder at the “boys” on side stage, as Alan Keyes was answering a round robin question on taxes. I donated to Keyes. Or, no for mccain.

    ***********

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    Page 169 U. S. 683

    In the great case of The 11 U. S. 7 Cranch 116, the grounds upon which foreign ministers are, and other aliens are not, exempt from the jurisdiction of this country were set forth by Chief Justice Marshall in a clear and powerful train of reasoning,…

    In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that, upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war, and that the implied license under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants for purposes of business or pleasure can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found.

    See also 83 U. S. 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877), 95 U. S. 210; Wildenhus’ Case (1887), 120 U. S. 1;

    Chae Chan Ping v. United States@ (1889), 130 U. S. 581, 130 U. S. 603, 130 U. S. 604.

    ***************

    http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

    THE

    LAW OF NATIONS

    FROM THE FRENCH OF
    MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.

    http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

    BOOK I.
    OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.

    CHAP. I.
    OF NATIONS OR SOVEREIGN STATES.

    § 216. Children born at sea.

    As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.

    § 217. Children born in the armies of the state.

    For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction,
    cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

    ********

    In order to shorten this Sections 215 and 218 omitted

    Otherwise I agree with what I have read from you Leo and if you care to show where I am wrong please do. – Thanks for the blog.

    [Ed. Even if you were born in the country, that doesn't mean you are natural born. So, even if you take the law of nations statement as to military, and even if you say for that purpose McCain was born in the US, he's not natural born. In fact, the US has a statute which makes McCain a citizen, but needing such a statute means you are not natural born. McCain was a citizen of Panama at birth, and he's not nbc. Give it up. McCain is more guilty than Obama. McCain knew he could never challenge Obama, either in the polls or in Quo Warranto. He should have stepped aside for the good of the nation. Look where he got us.]

  158. [...] that order, one of my astute readers (Joe The Blogger) asked the following question which led me to write this post: [...]

  159. In follow-up to my recent posting regarding John McCain, thank you for your comments. Actually, I happen to believe the legal theory on which Mr. McCain bases his claim is flawed because it seeks to equate the status of citizen-at-birth with natural-born-citizen. My comments, however, were limited to addressing the arguments you made in your post.
    In your reply, you assert that “The land was Panama land. The people born there are Panama citizens. The US Government has never tried to deny that.”
    True only insofar as ignoring and denying are two different things. In 1914, the government of Panama instituted a Civil Registry system to record birth, death, and other records of the populace. The position of the American CZ government was that this law had no power in any area under its control, so it did not comply with it. If parents of a newborn wanted the birth to be recognized by the Panamanian authorities, they had to take the necessary documents issued by the CZ authorities to the Civil Registry, at which time the parents would be issued a new set of Panamanian documents. To this day, if you want to obtain birth records of a person born under CZ administration, you must generally contact a US agency in Washington, DC.
    While it is also true that “the land wasn’t SOLD back to Panama. The US just left the land,” this gets into the issue of unincorporated territories which is very important, but wasn’t the basis of your argument which I was addressing. Your argument was based on the common mis-identification of Mr. McCain’s birth records as Panamanian, as well as the (also common) misrepresentation of Colon Hospital’s status as being outside US jurisdiction.

    [Ed. You are mistaken, the city of Colon was never part of the PCZ. Furthermore, McCain was a Panama citizen at birth under their Constitution.]

    As to your statement that “To pretend that McCain was’t a Panama citizen at birth is a fraud”: Regardless of what the Panamanian Constitution may currently say, according to “Text from enclosure with Despatch No. 3050, September 12, 1929, from the American Minister to Panama to the Secretary of State,” as of October 19, 1928, certain changes were made to Article 6 of the Panama National Constitution in regards to the nationality of newborns .
    “The title of Panaman may be acquired by birth or naturalization. The children of Panaman parents born in the republic or outside of it, provided in the latter case the parents are Panaman by birth, are Panamans by birth. Those who are born in the Republic of foreign parents shall be called Panamans if within the year following their majority they declare to the Executive Power that they choose Panaman nationality and prove that they have resided in the republic during the six years previous to said declaration.”

    [Ed. This is meant to read that the child has Panam citizenship up until the age of majority when he must make a declaration....it's the same intent as the Kenyan law for Obama.]

    “The status of Panaman by naturalization may be granted to: (a) Children born of alien parents in the republic who opt for Panaman nationality in the manner indicated in the previous paragraph, without having had the residence explained in the same, and provided they obtain a letter of naturalization.”
    Unless this was changed again before 1936, then as the child of two foreign alien parents, the one thing which can definitely NOT be asserted is that McCain was a Panamanian citizen at birth.

  160. I wholeheartedly agree that John McCain is not now nor ever can be a NBC since a person must be born a Natural BORN Citizen.

    However I must express caution in citing the argument that any subsequent action like renouncing foreign citizenship is somehow legally significant and thus somehow legally applicable, when logically it can’t be , and I believe this is also playing into the disinformation campaign being promoted by the Barry (And McCain.) apologists IMHO.

    Again either a US citizen is BORN a US NBC “at birth” or they are not !

    If I remember correctly Barack’s website also erroneously cites Kenyan law that states he could renounce his Kenyan citizenship until a certain age.

    So what ?

    Any legal action taken by either McCain or Barack subsequent to their births anywhere and at any time after their births CAN NOT LOGICALLY THUS CAN NOT LEGALLY affect the specific applicable constitutional and ctizenship “at birth” conditions according to the laws in effect that must have existed at the time of both Barack and McCain’s births to erroneously and subsequently then re-define their citizenship status as that of a US NBC if they were not at first BORN a NBC .

    “Again either a US citizen is BORN a US NBC “at birth” AND REMAINS SO IN SPITE OF AFTERWARDS RENOUNCING FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP or THEY NEVER WERE NBCs in the first place ! ”

    Ex post facto laws if I remember correctly are unconstitutional .

    [Ed. you are correct. that has always been my point. nbc attains at birth and no other time. you are born nbc or you are not.]

  161. Leo:

    Does it matter in general what other countries think or claim? Take a hyothetical country that claims that anyone containing blood of their nationality is a citizen of their country. A couple immigrate to the US, become citizens, then give birth to someone. The country in question claims them a citizen, thus one could argue the born person is a dual citizen, and thus not NB.

    Does the US ignore all citizenship claims outside its law? Obviously this scenario takes a different twist when the born person is born on other national soil.

    I think the key is (say in the case of Obama) did the US have a treaty recognizing the ctizenship claims of the other country. Did the US recognize UK citizenship claims in 1961? How about Panama?

    [Ed. If one is born in the US of parents who are US citizens, then that person is nbc regardless of what any other country may decide...that's my interpretations of the law.]

  162. Thank you for your responses to my previous 2 posts. I find it interesting that in those responses and on your blog, you continue to reference the modern version of Panama’s Constitution. You are aware, are you not, that there have been 4 fully different Constitutions (1904, 1941, 1946, 1972), not to mention numerous amendments of each one? If you are basing your decisions on the modern version, then your conclusions will inevitably be in error.

    Your statements regarding Articles 8, 9, and 13 have nothing to do with John McCain, because they refer to the wrong document. What is “even if we analyze the issue by assuming McCain was born in the Canal Zone,” supposed to mean? McCain was not eligible (IMHO), but basing your arguments on the wrong facts is only going to help one party.

    As to your statement that “You are mistaken, the city of Colon was never part of the PCZ,” I never claimed that the CITY was part of the PCZ. However, as noted in my original post, in Article VIII of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty the Republic of Panama explicitly waived the exercise of sovereign authority over land that had been owned by either the Panama Canal Company or its predecessor, the Panama Railroad Company, provided it was occupied and in-use. Under the terms of the 1904 treaty, Colon Hospital, as situated from 1904 until 1957, was part of the territory administered by the US Canal Zone government. If John McCain were born there (as you say), it would be the same as being born in the PCZ proper. His records, which you have posted on your blog, support this because they were issued by the (US-administered) Colon Hospital, and the CZ administration, not the Panamanian Civil Registry. Colon Hospital was CLOSED in 1954, and relocated in 1957 as required under the Treaty of 1955, and the Article VIII properties transferred back to Panamanian control.

    Ironically, had John McCain been born (as you assert) on land that was outside the PCZ administration, then, in his court case, he would not have had to rely upon the 1937 law to bolster his case. Under the 1934 law, any child born to American Citizens “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States”, was a US citizen-at-birth (NOT the same as NBC). If that were the case, his birth would have been recorded with the Civil Registry as the child of alien parents, but he would nevertheless have been born a US citizen. The fact that he relied upon the 1937 law once again supports the documentary evidence that he was born under PCZ jurisdiction.

    As to your statement that “This is meant to read that the child has Panam citizenship up until the age of majority when he must make a declaration,” I am not familiar with the Kenyan law, but your conclusion appears to be based on your reading of the modern constitution. The intent of Panamanian law (post 1929) was to associate the children of aliens with the parents until the age of independence, at which time they COULD (not MUST) make a choice (provided they had been registered with the Civil Registry at least 6 years previous). This is effectively a naturalization process, and is reflected in the history of those non-American/European peoples who chose to settle in Panama and struggled to gain acceptance.

    History backs this up. Between the influx of workers to build the Canal, and becoming a major world port, the native population was being overwhelmed by alien workers and their families. They became increasingly xenophobic as time went on, preferring to avoid conferring the identity of Panaman on anyone it could otherwise classify as an alien; only reversing course later as the “alien” populations became politically significant. The most popular politicians were Nazi sympathizers, and at one point attempted to have the entire black population deported.

    As to the general argument that he is a citizen of Panama, whatever theoretical rights he may have had from being born there, if you check with the Panamanian government, you will find that PCZ documents are not acceptable as proof of citizenship. In order to claim citizenship in ANY form, you must first be registered with the Civil Registry. Not only that, but they use the date you filed with the Civil Registry as your “start” date for naturalization, not your birth date. In order for John McCain to be a Panamanian citizen, his parents would have had to register him with the Civil Registry, and if they wanted to give him the ability to “make a declaration” at the age of his majority, they would have had to do so more than 6 years prior to the majority age.

    IMHO, The unfortunate fact about Mr. McCain is that he was born into a legal black hole. He bases his claim of eligibility on citizenship-by-virtue-of-birth under the 1934 law, which used the words “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States”, and on the 1937 law which retroactively covered the PCZ. The question which most fail to ask is why the 1937 law was necessary in the first place. The answer is that while births in the PCZ MIGHT be within US jurisdiction (born under US municipal law, but dependent on parentage), they were still “out of the limits”, so the 1934 law didn’t technically apply to the PCZ. By focusing the discussion on “Wong Kim Ark”, which pre-dated the Insular Cases, the McCain camp neatly avoided having to address the true issue. However, since both laws apply to persons born outside the US, the truth is a simple chain of logic for anyone who bothers to look. Unfortunately, Mr. McCain got a federal judge to sign off on his reasoning, a decision which will never be appealed because it is moot.

    [ed. nothing in this long comment disproves my assertion that he was a Panama citizen at birth or that he was not born in Colon, Panama.]

  163. Hi Leo,

    I’m a conservative, national talk radio host. I interviewed you live on air ages ago. I have interviewed Phil Berg and Dr. Alan Keys many times about elegability issues. Would you like to come on my show again? I would be most honored. My direct email is: drljroth@aol.com My show web site is: http://www.therothshow.com. I air daily 3-6pm PAC.
    Warmly, Laurie Roth

  164. “nothing in this long comment disproves my assertion that he was a Panama citizen at birth” – Nothing except the 1929 ammendment to the 1904 Constitution which associated children with their parents until the age of independence

    [ed. please show the law you make reference to... I do not see the law in your post only an allegation that the law says what you say it says. "associate children with parents"... I don't know what that means to citizenship. Where did you read this.? Who translated it? If you have possession of this law, then feel free to post it. It sounds to me like the law you are speaking of is a general law giving parents the legal right to control their children. It doesn't sound like anything to do with citizenship.]

    , as opposed to your interpretation based on a document which didn’t exist when he was born.
    “or that he was not born in Colon, Panama” – Clever, but I never said he wasn’t. The question is whether he was born on Article VIII property or not. If he wasn’t, then he was a US citizen at birth based on the 1934 law, but his birth documents would be Panaman. If he was, then he wasn’t covered by the 1934 law, which was why the 1937 law became necessary, and why he relied upon it in his legal case. The birth documents on your blog are PCZ, and therefore support the latter scenario.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: