NO TRUCKS PERMITTED BEYOND THIS POINT!

The message is pretty straight forward. Or is it? Since no point is identified, other than that of where the sign is placed, is identified, “THIS POINT” would be understood to be where the sign is placed. If you’re in a truck, going beyond it is prohibited. An exception to the prohibition is provided for pickup trucks. (For the sake of this argument; the authority to place the sign and impose the restriction is accepted.)

What is a truck?

Additions might always be made to the trucks in the United States in two ways: first, by being built domestically, and the second as imports. This is apparent from the sign itself, for it prohibits all trucks, with the exception of domestic pickup trucks.

The sign does not, in words, say what a domestic pickup truck is. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. The common usage, the nomenclature of which most people are familiar, it was never doubted that those motor vehicles with an open body and low sides and a tailboard, used for hauling/towing, were trucks. These are the “pickup trucks”, as opposed to dump trucks and tractors. Some people go further and include as trucks, sport utility vehicles (without regard to hauling/towing). As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this examination, it is not necessary to resolve those doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that pickup trucks are trucks, and that by being a pickup truck, they are exempted from the prohibition mandated by the sign.
The word “trucks” is certainly comprehensive, when used in this sign. Tractors (the front half of an 18-wheeler) and dump trucks are included in the prohibition as trucks. That would certainly not be denied. In fact, the whole purpose of the sign was to prevent them from proceeding along the path.

I would now ask the readers to answer two questions:
By saying “These are the “pickup trucks”, as opposed to dump trucks and tractors. Some people go further and include as trucks, sport utility vehicles (without regard to hauling/towing)”
Was the statement left open so that sport utility vehicles could be considered to be pickup trucks? Or does that statement only leave open the possibility that sport utility vehicles may be added to the classification known as “trucks”?

Why was this examination of words presented to our readers? It was a primer. It prepared the reader to recognize that they have the knowledge to examine and dissect words.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

If you read this, “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first”
and determined that those born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents, might also be natural-born citizens, you probably read this
“These are the “pickup trucks”, as opposed to dump trucks and tractors. Some people go further and include as trucks, sport utility vehicles (without regard to hauling/towing)”
and determined that sport utility vehicles were pickup trucks.

What most people cannot understand (and this author would agree) is how “Some people go further and include as trucks” is understood by some to be leaving the door open to have the sport utility vehicle be considered to be a “pickup truck”, when a reading of the text itself only left the door open for sport utility vehicles to be classified as “trucks”.
Your determination is important! You see, some judges in Indiana, and a judge in Georgia, would read the statements
These are the “pickup trucks” and “Some people go further and include as trucks, sport utility vehicles (without regard to hauling/towing)”
and conclude that the statement left open the door for sport utility vehicles to be classified as “pickup trucks”.

We all have a tendency to read into what was written, so as to suit our own needs. This is the primary reason we insist that our judges be impartial. We wouldn’t want a judge who owns a sport utility vehicle to be the one who determines if a sport utility vehicle should be classified as a truck. This would be true even if the benefits of such classification would be of little consequence to the judge.
–This makes me wonder!!! (as any reasonable person should) How much incentive would it take before a supposedly impartial judge (or panel of judges) would go well beyond that of including sport utility vehicles within the classification of motor vehicles know as “trucks”, (a door clearly left open by any reasonable interpretation of the words) to that of concluding that sport utility vehicles are “pickup trucks”?
Even if we would go so far as to consider the door to be left open, whereas to contemplate including sport utility vehicles as being among the classification known as “pickup trucks”, is it not incumbent upon the person(s) who chose to conclude that a sport utility vehicle is a pickup truck to provide us with the criteria used to arrive at their conclusion? Without providing the basis for the decision, isn’t the real door that gets left open, the door which provides for any vehicle to be classified as a pickup truck?

Words have meaning. When we decide that those meanings no longer serve a useful purpose, and abandon them in favor of popular sentiment, we accept that we now live in a world where a word can mean anything or nothing at all. Am I the only one who sees that? Am I the only one who recognizes the inherent dangers associated with accepting that to be our future?
I don’t care which side of this debate you’re on. Sometimes we have to recognize that things go far beyond “NOW”, and recognize the future impact of accepting that which most people recognize to be an unfounded interpretation of words.

Now read the sign at the top again.

Do you think that all domestic trucks are domestic pickup trucks?

Are all domestic trucks, made in the USA?

Is it possible to have a distinction between the types of trucks, and still have all trucks manufactured in the USA be domestic trucks?

Believe it or not, some people say that all domestic trucks have to be domestic pickup trucks. Their reasoning??? Because all trucks can only be domestic or imported.

The Court wanted no part of issuing something on the merits based upon Judge Malihi’s own opinion. They forced his hand, and in doing so exposed important information concerning the depth of the greatest national security issue this country faces today. This decision by Malihi, and the other judicial decisions which fail horribly at following stare decisis, have exposed the Commander In Chief’s office to being taken over by the child of the very worst foreign despots. The country will probably never recover from this change.

The plaintiffs and their attorneys were not looking to win a hollow victory, but to fairly request judicial determination of the issues. It took great courage to do that, and in doing so they exposed the ugly truth. Their arguments, and those in my brief, (which according to the Court rules, should be part of the public record) are far superior to those in Judge Malihi’s decision, which is devoid of historical accuracy and important context, particularly in that he never discusses the genesis of English common law on this issue, which is Calvin’s Case. He doesn’t discuss it because he can’t do so and justify his opinion.

And now national citizenship as well as POTUS eligibility rests on the back of Justice Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark, a case which no Judge has ever had more of a personal stake in. Our legal system is a joke because of this. The rest of the world will also recognize the fraud on the court perped by Gray and now followed by so many others. But now that the evil truth of the decision in WKA is becoming common knowledge, history, as it always does, will record those who decided to opt for lies.

History has no blind allegiance to despotism. History is ruthless, and it will not be governed. The truth always outs. And those who are on the wrong side if it, live in shame.

Word up.

“Media Blackout In Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/media_blackout_in_obama_georgia_ballot_eligibility_case.html

Leo

“616-1-2-.23 Record of Hearings. Amended.
(1) All rulings, orders, and notices issued by the Administrative Law Judge, all pleadings and motions, all recordings or transcripts of oral hearings or arguments, all written direct testimony, all other data, studies, reports, documentation, information, and other written material of any kind submitted in the proceedings, a statement of matters officially noticed, all proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and briefs, as well as the Initial or Final Decision shall be a part of the hearing record and shall be available to the public, except as provided by law according confidentiality.” (Emphasis added.)

“616-1-2-.23 Record of Hearings. Amended.
(1) All rulings, orders, and notices issued by the Administrative Law Judge, all pleadings and motions, all recordings or transcripts of oral hearings or arguments, all written direct testimony, all other data, studies, reports, documentation, information, and other written material of any kind submitted in the proceedings, a statement of matters officially noticed, all proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and briefs, as well as the Initial or Final Decision shall be a part of the hearing record and shall be available to the public, except as provided by law according confidentiality.” (Emphasis added.)

“Since the common law application of jus soli requires, as its basis of power, submission to Christ, the framers could not have intended to incorporate the jus soli element of natural allegiance into Article 2, Section 1. Therefore, it begins to look more and more likely that the specific intention of the natural-born citizen clause was to require both, jus soli, and, jus sanguinis.”

It’s the “natural allegiance” aspect of jus soli which is not incorporated into A2, S1. This is why simple birth on U.S. soil is not enough to make one a natural-born citizen. The words “natural born”, in “natural-born subject”, cannot be synonymous with the words “natural born”, in A2, S1.

Since naturalization statutes have always been necessary to create citizenship for those born abroad to citizen parents, we know that birth on U.S. soil was required to be a natural-born citizen, but the “natural” part of that phrase must come from a source other than the English common law, as it relates to natural allegiance, owed via birth within the power of the King as God’s monarch on Earth, as that power emanates throughout his realms (jus soli).

Jus sanguinis allegiance, as recognized by the nomenclature of the English common law, is initiated through the blood of one’s parents, which is related to the science of nature, as was discussed in Bacon v. Bacon.

The non-denominational Law of Nations definition of “natural-born citizen” requires both jus soli and jus sanguinis, which makes sense under international law, as to a chief executive, so that there is a singular and undivided allegiance from birth, so that conflicts as to treason and treaties would be avoided. Avoiding, and/or settling, such entanglements is the very purpose of international law, aka the Law of Nations.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), adopted a definition of natural-born citizen that requires birth in the country (jus soil) to citizen parents (jus sanguinis).

Leo

The English common law on this particular point was established by Calvin’s Case. This is universally recognized by courts in the UK and the US as the English common law standard on the issue of natural subjection as it relates to jus soli. Even Justice Gray, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, states that Calvin’s Case was the genesis of the English common law concept of natural allegiance.

But Justice Gray failed to mention that natural allegiance required one to be a Christian that recognized the King as the spiritual leader of Christ’s church. If one wasn’t a Christian, one denied the very nature of the King’s authority. Hence, simply being born on the soil of England did not make one a natural-born subject, unless one was a Christian.

This particular point of the common law is what matters to the issue of discerning the Constitutional meaning of “natural born Citizen”, not the exact moment in time when Christianity was officially recognized by the English common law as the religion of the state.

The unification of the thrones of England and Scotland required the judiciary to define natural allegiance, and it is that definition, from that particular case, courts are required to acknowledge as the English common law definition of “natural-born subject”.

Until my Amicus brief was filed, those supporting Obama’s eligibility routinely cited Calvin’s Case as governing the issue, but now… not so much.

Get ready for a fast exodus from the English common law for dem cats.

Leo

Furthermore, please understand the nature of an Amicus Brief. It means “friend of the court”. Again, I am not representing any of the parties. And the Court is not required to place any weight on the brief, or to even read it at all. This is the nature of an amicus brief.

I have no illusions one way or the other about the relevance of my work to the court. But they have accepted it, and there is no problem with the page count.

I repeat, the brief has not been filed on behalf of a party.

Chill.

Leo