Obama is Guilty on at least one count of false swearing.

[Ed. This story was edited and updated at 7:38 AM on July 28, 2009 to reflect that only one count of false swearing is documented by the document below.  The original story included two counts based upon two statements allegedly given to the State of Arizona and the State of Virginia.  This was originally posted by The Obama File blog.  That blog was wrong in that the two documents were actually separate pieces of one document forwarded by Obama to the State of Arizona.  The notary was in Virginia and that is where the confusion arose.  Below is a signed sworn statement by Obama forwarded to the State of Arizona and notarized by a notary in Virginia.  The legal analysis remains unchanged and unedited from my original post.]

On Nov. 30, 2007 Obama swore to and signed the document below:

Arizona full version swear

The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US.  The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a  Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.

Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President.  He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:

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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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.

In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue.  But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.

Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of  “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?

BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.

The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen.  But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”.   Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1.  This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.  But the  Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement.  SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”.  Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.

Obama –  the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status.  Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.

Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.

When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true.  If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your  “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are –  in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.

You can’t legally swear to the best of your knowledge that you are eligible to be President when the SCOTUS last word on the issue directly calls such eligibility into doubt.  You can’t even do that with a straight face let alone a sworn oath.

Even if the current SCOTUS were to one day hold that Obama is a natural-born citizen despite his British/Kenyan birth through his father (who was never a US citizen) that would not have been a holding available to Obama at the time he swore he was eligible.

The state of Arizona accepted as true the false sworn statements by Obama and thereafter placed his name on the ballots.  He was then elected President.  The voters in Arizona were directly defrauded by Obama’s false affirmations.

When Obama  swore he was eligible, he lied.  He didn’t swear that he might be eligible or that there was a good chance he would be found eligible.  He swore that he was – in fact – eligible. Obama’s certain affirmations under oath and penalty of perjury are false.  He could not have been certain and he should not have sworn that he was.   He’s guilty of false swearing despite whatever definition of natural-born citizen comes down the pike.

On December 13, 2007, Obama could not have been certain he was eligible to be POTUS.  He may have believed he could be held eligible according to his own hopes and his own analysis of what the current SCOTUS might say.  But such an analysis could be nothing more than an intellectual guess.  The affirmation demanded that he swear he was –  in fact – eligible to be POTUS.

A statesman puts the safety and legal sanity of the nation  ahead of himself.  Obama reversed that call to honor and placed himself ahead of the law.  The law questioned his eligibility but he swore under oath no such question existed.

The proper thing for Obama to have done was raise the issue before the American people prior to the election.  Perhaps he could have accomplished this by bringing a law suit to determine whether he could satisfy these affirmations without perjuring himself.  He did no such thing.  He swore something was true when he  knew the truth was in doubt.   Regardless of what SCOTUS might say about this issue in the future, no future holding can change the facts as they existed on December 13, 2007.

Obama has now been intellectually convicted of false swearing.

[Thanks to reader “Lawyer” for the affirmation scans and the legal tip on this issue.]


71 Responses to “Obama is Guilty on at least one count of false swearing.”

  1. Leo,
    Nice summary. I agree entirely. The legal system, the SCOTUS, had to know when they refused to hear your case. What does it mean?

    Pete

    [Ed. This issue of just how a Harvard law grad can swear he’s eligible when the leading SCOTUS decision says there are doubts ought tobe the main story, not the huge conspiracy theory regarding his BC… whether he was bon in the US or not, he’s issued on the record a sworn statement that he is eligible… that was false. He could never swear to that, he could only hope he was eligible… Minor clearly stated his eligibility was in doubt. Nobody is interested. The main stream media is getting the juicy BC issue out there and making it the last and final word. Well, bon apetite.]

  2. a smattering of just some of the other documents that are being purposely cloaked by the Obama Klingons:

    * Passport files
    * University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles
    * Harvard Law Review articles
    * Harvard Law School records
    * Columbia University records
    * Columbia University senior thesis, “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament”
    * Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received
    * Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school
    * Noelani Elementary School records, where Barack Obama attended kindergarten
    * Baptism records
    * Selective Service registration proof (MANDATORY for Federal Jobs – men born after December 31, 1959 must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.)
    * Obama/Dunham marriage license
    * Obama/Dunham divorce documents
    * Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
    * Soetero/Dunham Adoption records

  3. […] qualification form (see more in my Qualifications category) and that he thinks Mr. Obama is guilty of false swearing: On December 13, 2007 Obama swore to and signed the document […]

  4. Couldn’t Obama simply claim he was unaware of the Minor ruling? Then it’s still to the best of his knowledge a true statement and oath. We can’t assume Obama has certain information of cases that are not necessarily even law.

    [Ed. He could claim it, but I don’t think a jury would buy his claim. He was on the law review at Harvard. he was a Constitutional law professor. he was a candidate for President while also having been a dual citizen of a non-US citizen at birth. What are the chances he never researched the issue? The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any doubt. Obama knows about the Minor holding.]

  5. Is there any sort of prosecutorial avenue available? I guess Impeachment may be available, but fat chance of that.

    [Ed. The Arizona and Virginia Attorney General’s could prosecute or request Quo warranto.]

  6. Just who is Barry Seotoro/Barak Obama?

  7. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Regardless of what cases OBama would have been familiar with, he was certainly, beyond any doubt, familiar with Article 2 Section 1. And that being so, how can he swear he was a natural born citizen? He had to apply the law to the affirmation and there is no law, statutory or case holding, which says he was eligible. So where does he get off swearing that he is? How can he make such an affirmation under oath? It’s not possible because he can point to no law or case which says what he affirmed.

  8. Hi Leo

    Why not ask the State Attorney Generals to prosecute, and then take them to Court if they refuse?

    Same process as with the DC Quo warranto.

    Is there any reason why you can’t?

    Regards
    MarkR

    [Ed. I’m not a resident of Virginia or Arizona. I would imagine voters form those states would be the best people to raise the issue. But seriously folks, ladies and germs… Like anybody is going to do anything vs the emperor. People don’t even get it. The birthers actually think they are making headway. They are being used. Obama is here to stay. I wonder if we will ever have another POTUS election. Just something to think about it. This country is done.]

  9. Leo:

    One point of clarification (which I’ve already sent to TheObamaFile who published the “two states” claim.

    It is actually only one state – Arizona – where the false swearing has been done under jurat-notarized oath. He claims to be BOTH eligible under the Constitution AND that he isw a “natural born citizen”.

    The AZ document was notarized in VA and if you’ll check the notary stamp in the lower left of the VA document as well as the notary signature and date you’ll clearly see that the so-called “VA document” does not exist … only the AZ document.

    [Ed. What are you saying? Im confused. Are you saying he didn’t swear to Virginia that he was eligible?]

    But I think most courts would agree that one instance of fraud/false swearing in sufficient,

    You other comments are right on the money plus it should recorded for posterity that SR511 (which calls out two parents at birth for McCain) was not only voted on by Mr. Obama (and others), but that Obama was one of its sponsors.

    [Ed. I did a separate blog on that. See below.]

    He’s guilty as hell of perpetrating the biggest fraud and con job in world history. The only question is – will the American citizenry stop this nonsense from progressing much further? I think they will as people become educater.

    You’ve done a good bit in educating everyone, and I’d urge you to keep up the good work. A few people CAN make a massive difference!

  10. kathey benoit Says:

    Not one of us can claim “knowledge” of when or where we were born–not having memories until well after we learned to walk. We are forced to believe those around us–and follow up with any legally recognized paperwork to verify to words of our elders. Legally recognized paperwork has been submitted to verify what was told the child Barrack H. Obama while living in Hawaii.

    [Ed. Welcome Kathy, but please try to familiarize yourself with the vibe of this blog. I have stated and will state again now that I believe it’s most likely Obama was born in Hawaii – but that regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii, on the mall in DC in a manger rocked by Ronald Reagan or a palace in Kenya… it makes NO difference at all, he’s still not eligible because his father was a citizen of Great Britian and Kenya who was never a US citizen and that’s what disqualifies him from being eligible for POTUS.]

  11. naturalborncitizen Says:

    Site hits going through the roof on this post… think I’ve struck a nerve here. many people thought the 14th amendment was the basis for Obama’s nbc status. with this post, it’s finally been made clear that SCOTUS said six years after the 14th amendment that the COnstitution does not define nbc… which kinda sorta exposes the 14th amendment song and dance which tries to front that “native born” = “natural born”. They are two different things.

  12. This entire issue is more than an indictment of Obama, it indicts all of Congress who has done nothing in the face of the usurpation of an entire branch of our government. It is becoming the people vs. the establishment. At this point I’m beginning to realize just how destructive this could become to the Republic.

  13. I’m saying there was no “false swearing” in VA but only in AZ. The same document was erroneously used in Beckwith’s entry in TheObamaFile (and part of it cut off). I’m sending you the AZ *.jpeg by email.

    One false swearing is enuff!!

    (actually he was born atop the Washington Monument, but don’t tell his supporters! :0))

    [Ed. Are you saying he never filed an affirmation with Virginia? Doesn’t VA require such an affirmation?]

  14. I am so shocked that the only Lawyer trying to enforce the US Constitutional requirements as to President is a Russian Immigrant to the US, Orly Taitz.

    What is wrong with the US Lawyers/Citizens?

    Why can’t a US Citizen go to the LIbrary, go to the Courthouse and follow the simple steps necessary to do Quo warranto in DC, or Arizona?

    I’m not a US Citizen, but if I were, I would do it like a shot.

    Is it Fear, or Apathy?

    [Ed. I am a lawyer and I helped influence the lawyer you mentioned. Trust me, they would much rather face her than me. Word.]

    Regards
    MarkR

  15. Simply amazing. Let’s see; a “citizen” can be a Congressman. Thus, Thomas Lantos, born in Hungary, survived the holocaust, came here, gained citizenship, became a Congressman. Couldn’t be President, not “natural born.”

    And there’s the distinction. Between Naturalized, and “Natural Born.”

    Oh, by the way,

    HOW does a man become a “retired” attorney, Mr. Donofrio?

    [Ed. One simply retires from practicing law and starts winning poker tournaments and WSOP jewlery. It’s not that hard really. You just make a conscious decision to change your life and stop doing something that makes you miserable and start doing something that makes you happy. That’s what I did and I can suggest it to all reading this. Just because you are trained in one field you can’t stand doesn’t mean you have to spend the rest of your life being miserable.]

    Can you prove you weren’t “retired” involuntarily?

    [Ed. I don’t practice law, but my license is active and my record before the NJ Bar association is totally clear and purely unblemished. I have the potential to make way more money playing poker than I could as an attorney. Plus I don’t have to shave, can make my own hours, dont have to deal with clients and travel wherever I like to find action. Word up, Holmes.]

  16. Hello Leo,
    I would like to ask you a question…I’m about 99.9% sure of what your answer will be, but I’m going to ask it anyway….Out of all the attorneys that have or are pursuing cases against Obama’s eligibility, you have always had the best FOCUS and have not allowed yourself to be sidetracked by non issues….Is there any chance in hell that you would be willing to give it another go in court with a newly filed case?….Could you be enticed to do so?….Surely, by now, there must be an avenue other than quo warranto to, directly or indirectly, force this issue to the surface in a court room….I have my fingers crossed for Mr. Apuzzo’s case, but like the previous cases, I feel that it will be quashed.

    [Ed. In order to handle a case I would need to stop playing poker, stop my life and focus on the law suit. I’d need a client I believe has a real case and I’d need money to prosecute the litigation. I don’t have a client. I brought my original action as a NJ citizen and it was a strong case. If SCOTUS punted on that, they would certainly punt on something less.]

  17. Leo, you have done it again!

    You have pointed out something that was right in our faces that we did not see. First you condensed the quoted statements from Obama’s campaign website ahd factCheck.. into a sungle brilllian question

    “How does British Law [British Nationality Act of 1948] govern the birth status of an American natural born citizen?”

    And now… (I paraphrase)…

    “If the 14th Amendment was to mean that anyone born in the US is a “natural born citizen”, it should have used that exact wording, and also, six years later, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite would not have declared in Minor vs Happersett, ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.'”

    —–

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
    – 14th Amendment, adopted July 09, 1868

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”
    – Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite, in “Minor v Happersett, March 29, 1875

    [Ed. Thanks Ken. I thought you might get the concept. This post is very important. It denies the Obama supporters of reliance upon the 14th Amendment in no uncertain terms and comes directly from the mouth of SCOTUS. Funny how words avoid us sometimes. Just got this together in my head today and it was a revelation.”]

  18. Leo,
    That wasn’t the “Hell No!!!’ that I expected….I wonder if Inspector General Walpin has a legitimate case.

    BTW, how have the poker tournies been going?…Well, I hope.

  19. A state attorney general or governor could also file a federal civil action on behalf of their state because the state has the authority under the Constitution’s structure to defend against federal usurpation.

    “Resolved, that the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
    -Thomas Jefferson
    Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
    From http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyadopted.html

    [Ed. Nice quote. Good research.]

  20. LEO,NICE WORK. HERE’S ANOTHER INSTANCE OF OBAMA TRYING TO DIRECTLY OVERTURN THE CONSTITUTION, AND GETTING A CONGRESSIONAL REBUKE!!!
    http://realnoooz.today.com/2009/07/27/obamas-ridiculous-attempt-to-trample-the-constitution/

  21. Clark Hamblin Says:

    Thank you brother, still working to uphold the Constitution! Clark Hamblin

  22. A little Yin Yang viewpoint.

    The Yin: The Obama Presidency/Administration.

    The Yang: A (made) aware and educated public.

    Next….

    The Yin: An Obama Administration removal and prosecution.

    The Yang: ???

    The point is “we” seem to be aware and educated on so many details to expose and (hopefully) remove the Obama Administration BUT are “we” prepared for what MAY be next.

    I’m NOT referring to race riots and/or “Martial Law”

    What about the Courts, Congress, Law Enforcement, etc. that did NOTHING?

    Is removing the Obama Administration (that was fraudulently elected) by ITSELF simply putting a band-aid on a broken arm?

    Do they not ALL need to be removed and/or reprimanded in some way?

    P.S.

    Don’t be so negative about the Obama Administration’s exit (thinking Barry’s there to stay).

    The same was said of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini – Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon and many others.

    Karma’s a bit**!

    Barry’s end will likely be quite unique (and deserving)!

  23. Clark Hamblin Says:

    Attorney General Terry Goddard July 6, 2009
    Office of the Attorney General
    1275 West Washington Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    Fax 602.542.4085

    *Mr. Attorney General, Sir,
    **My name is Clark Hamblin, I am writing this letter to you in so much as to advise you *that I have an active case at law filed and on record within the Federal District Court for the *District of Arizona. While my case is a civil action, there are within it allegations of fraud that *has been perpetrated upon the State of Arizona. It is because of those allegations that I am *writing to you. It is my duty as a citizen with knowledge of such crimes to inform the proper *authorities so as to avoid any future culpability on my part, and to advise you of my knowledge *so that you may act, or not act as you see fit, so as to protect the interest of the people of our *great State, and the State herself.
    **I have entered into the record for case number CV 09-00410-PHX-ROS, which is now *before the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, Prima facia evidence in support of these allegations. One *of the Defendants is now in default and a request of the Clerk for entry of default judgment is *pending. This fraud may have cost the State of Arizona no less than $2,433,793.80 to my *knowledge, that is not to say that that has yet to be confirmed by verdict. Also, I do not know *exactly how all things within the State are funded.
    **There are two Defendants in my civil action, and they are both very prominent political *figures which makes this a matter that most people of legal authority shun. I asure you that I *believe that my case is strong in so far as the evidence of the crimes which I am alleging. It is not *a case I wish to discuss in this letter, but I have supplied you with the Docket number, and *within the docket there are the statements of allegations and exhibits entered in the form of *documentary type with more to come, as I am now prepairing my memorandum in support of *my request for default. Within my case I have already laid out the parallel to a Qui Tam action.
    **My case is a case of first impression in which I am asking for two legal definitions to be *determined by a jury of the citizens of the State of Arizona.
    **I feel by this letter I have given you what is required to inform you and given you the *location to find further details. I would however suggest you start by looking at the later filings
    *first, just a suggestion. If you should wish to speak with me on this matte, I am at your service.
    *If not, I will take that as the assurance that you, nor your office, will in no way hold me to any act of negligence, facilitation, concealment, conspiracy, or any other charge concerning this *matter.Again Sir, I am at your disposal shall you feel the desire to call upon me. I am simply a *concerned citizen of the State of Arizona and the United States.

    Respectfully.
    in Propria Persona

    Clark Hamblin

    [Ed. personal info snipped]

  24. Starbeau Says:

    The question posed by you that you should ask anyone wading in on Obama’s eligibility to serve as President:

    “During the election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was “governed” by the British Nationality Act of 1948.  Can you please tell the American people how a natural born citizen of the United States can be governed – at birth – by British law?”

    can also be taken a step further using the 14th Amendment which states:
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

    The word jurisdiction means complete jurisdiction. Owing no allegiance to any foreign entity.
     
    Obama was born under limited jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore was not a citizen “at birth”.
     
    If Obama has not applied for citizenship, he is an illegal alien!!!!!

  25. Bro Leo this is the case I spoke of also clark Hamblins case is ver active in Az court as we speak Justia will really give you a total update! This Man is ispired and I truly believe Devinly inspired !A US Attorney is following the case and the doj is defending Obama as well as stepcoe and Johnson ! an enclave gets McCain and did he not false swear also???

    [Ed. I would like to see the dates McCain made such affirmations as well. Certainly, if the Senate saw fit to seek that resolution regarding McCain’s eligibility, then there was enough doubt available to him as well making his affirmations just as shady.]

  26. Thanks Leo & Lawyer,

    Great Work! as usual.

    OK, down to business. I got so tired of the claims that since mama was a citizen, then Obama was an NBC so here is what I have posted at my site.
    Feel free to correct me is you see that I have made any mistakes:

    As the media continues to desecrate the legal standing of those who’s only wish is to have a Constitutionally qualified President, I feel I must address this 1 more time so there is no misunderstanding of my research. Especially for my new readers.

    When looking into the original intent of the framers of the 18th century, we must remember that women did not have the rights of men. A woman’s citizenship followed that of her father until the day she married. At that time, her citizenship was automatically transferred to that of her husband, thus the reason for the wording in the following statements of the framers:

    Historical Fact #1: On July 25, 1787, John Jay, the 1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under the new Republic and also the President of the Continental Congress, wrote to George Washington the following:

    “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”

    Historical Fact #3: Additionally, in 1800, Charles Pinckney ( Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure…attachment to the country”:

    “What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”

    Historical Fact #4: Further research brings us to St. George Tucker (Fourteenth and Fifteenth Congresses (March 4, 1815-March 3, 1819); chairman, Committee on District of Columbia (Fourteenth Congress), Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings (Fifteenth Congress); author of Tucker’s Commentaries and of a treatise on natural law and on the formation of the Constitution of the United States and State senate, 1819-1823; chancellor of the fourth judicial district of Virginia 1824-1831):

    “The Provision in the Constitution which requires that the President shall be a “natural born” citizen, unless he were a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted, is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.

    The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would render him a member of a fraternity of the crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

    Under the laws of the time, this would have meant that, as long as the father was a US citizen, then both parents were US citizens, thus the child was subject to no other jurisdictions and had no allegiance to any foreign nations.

    Now fast forward to the 20th century when the laws were changed and women were given individual citizen status:

    On 22 September 1922, Congress passed the Married Women’s Act, also known as the Cable Act. Now the citizenship status of a woman and a man were separate. This law gave each woman her own citizenship status. This act was partially drawn in response to issues regarding women’s citizenship that occurred after women were given the right to vote. From this date, no marriage to an alien has taken citizenship from any U.S.-born woman. Females who had lost their citizenship status via marriage to an alien could initiate their own naturalization proceedings.

    1936
    This act effected U.S. citizen women whose marriage to an alien between the acts of 1907 and 1922 had caused them to lose their citizenship status. These women, if the marriage to the alien had ended in death or divorce, could regain their citizenship by filing an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath of allegiance. Those women still married to their husband were not covered under the act and these individuals would have to go through the complete naturalization process.

    1940
    In 1940, Congress allowed all women who lost their citizenship status between 1907 and 1922 to repatriate by filling an application with the local naturalization court and taking an oath. The complete naturalization process was no longer necessary for any woman whose marriage between 1907 and 1922 caused her to lose her citizenship status.

    Thus any child born to parents with different citizenship, was born holding dual citizenship and it is recorded in Congressional records that the US did not recognize dual citizenship for the purposes of Article II, Section I, Clause V.

    When we look further into the study of the 14th Amendment’s drafting, we find a ruling from US Attorney General, George Williams (1865 to 1871 Williams served as United States Senator from Oregon. In 1871 he was a member of the commission to settle the Alabama claims from the Treaty of Washington. December 14, 1871-1875; Attorney General of the United States). George was a US Senator at the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment:

    “The word “jurisdiction” under the 14th Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.”

    Essentially, what this means is that in order to be a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, one must renounce any other allegiances so that their US citizenship is solely under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. In fact, controversy at the time due to dual allegiances was so great that Congress, in a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 said:

    “The United States have not recognized double allegiance”

    Rep. Bingham commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between ‘natural born” and ‘born” citizenships under the 14th Amendment:

    “It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of “parents” [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a “natural born” citizen.”

    The term “natural born citizen” is only located in ONE place in the Constitution: Article II, Section I, Clause V:

    No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Now, make note of the phrase ” at the time of the adoption of this Constitution“. The framers grandfathered themselves in and limited the time that the grandfather clause could be used so that as soon as the next generation came of age, there would no longer be an option for someone with a foreign parent or foreign birth to hold the highest political office of our country.

    It does not take a law degree nor even degree in history to figure this out. They used to teach it in grammar school, but unfortunately, American history has become passe’.

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/bringing-the-constitution-into-the-21st-century/

    I also took the the audio of your Chester break through and made a youtube:

    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/obama-44th-president-a-fraud-just-as-chester-arthur-21st-president-was-a-fraud/

    well, thanks for listening, let me know if I goofed at all on that mama citizenship posting

  27. Clark Hamblin Says:

    Starbeau, please review the filings in this case at Scribd. thank you. CH

  28. Leo,
    According to what jtx said, I think this is all one document that was notarized in Virginia and faxed to Arizona. Look at the date stamps on both pages. They both say 3:01 PM on the same day. There is little chance that they would both be received at the same time in two different states.

  29. Tony Stark Says:

    Excellent article, Leo! I’ve been trying to spread the word that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS because his father was a British citizen at the time of his birth, and some one always brings up the 14th Amendment and insists that it makes anyone born in the US an NBC regardless of the citizenship status of the parents at the time of birth. BTW, when will you and your sister publish that book on Chester Arthur? I hope it includes a discussion on its relevance to Obama’s own eligibility.

    [Ed. You’ve grasped the main point and it’s one that needs to be repeated again and again. The 14th Amendment does not confer nbc status. We have a direct ruling on that issue form SCOTUS in the MInor case. I really wish I had put the pieces together sooner, but the gravity of the MInor decision seems to grow stronger every day and with every time I read it. Please blog this important point. Without the 14th Amendment argument, it’s very hard to see where Obama eligibility proponents can justify his nbc status. We need to make sure history records he does not get nbc status form the 14th amendment… and that leaves a gaping hole in his eligibility.]

  30. Oh my. And in his own hand.

    The trivializing dismissals of this issue made possible by the 14th Amendment of 1868 seem fully eclipsed by the Minor decision of 1874. Minor appears to vacate the room and shut the door.

    Twelve years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment SCOTUS affirms Vattel, recognizing the special class of natural born citizen as requiring both parents to be citizens of the land of the child’ s birth.

    Barack Obama was born to a single citizen parent.

    To certify otherwise is a difficult thing to explain away, for as a constitutional lawyer swearing that he is eligible for the presidency that is exactly what he did: certify he was born to two citizen parents of the United States.

  31. You were correct… You stated that when the media finally did get on the story they would focus only on the birth certificate and not the real issue of citizenship… Now it is in the mainstream media and they are focusing only on that issue…. I should have known you would be correct..

  32. Mr. Donofrio,

    I am ignorant of the law but I would surmise that he would defend himself with the mitigator that he swore such in good faith. Unfortunately, many of our jurists and legislators are confused as to the fundamental difference of native and natural born citizenship. I contend it is a result of those who have looked at the 14th Amendment and NOTHING else…

    Thanks for the new post. I am always delighted to read something that does not have at its focal point a birth certificate.

    Thanks, again.

    -1SG Nosworthy

    Oh, nearly forgot…if I were to falsly swear as did my CIC this would be my punishment IAW UCMJ;

    Article 134—(False swearing)
    a. Text of statute. See paragraph 60.
    b. Elements.
    (1) That the accused took an oath or equivalent;
    (2) That the oath or equivalent was administered to the accused in a matter in which such oath or equivalent was required or authorized by law;
    (3) That the oath or equivalent was administered by a person having authority to do so;
    (4) That upon this oath or equivalent the accused made or subscribed a certain statement;
    (5) That the statement was false;
    ( 6 ) That the accused did not then believe the statement to be true; and
    (7) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
    Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.

  33. Mr. Donofrio,

    I failed to qualify my earlier statement as to his mitigation for good faith. It should be evident that he knows more than the average legislator in the fact he studied and practiced constitutional law.

    Gee, I wonder why the constitution might have held such a fascination for him (other than to manipulate it to a particular narrow activist purpose)?

    I say these things without the intent of denigrating the office of the Presidency or the officeholder. It is stated as what it is.

    -Noz

  34. I have a question, or more of an interest in your opinion. I am not a complete fan of Ann Coulter, but she is a conservative to my knowledge. What is your take on her recent comments regarding the so called “birthers”..? I will be honest here, I did not vote for Obama for a myriad of reasons, but at first I blew this whole thing off.. I became enlightened the more I investigated, which also lead me to your site.

    I am perplexed by the medias lack of response of this issue, I know they are in the tank for the POTUS, but their fear of the subject is something that continues to baffle me… I mean if it were Sarah Palin for example we all know how that would end.

    [Ed. it is my opinion that the mains stream media talking heads all fall in line with each other as good cop bad cop is played out to divide the population, divide and concquer. Obama is the elite chosen one and McCain helped him get elected. I do not believe they were ever running against each other. Just extrapolate that vibe and you’ll have your answer. We are a country run by a type of political Cosa Nostra which makes Goodfellas look like small fish… and we have been for a long time. ]

  35. Mr. Donofrio,

    This is my last comment and I SWEAR I’ll shut up. Ha! I could not get the thought of Mr. Obama being a lawyer astute in the constitution out of my head.

    Your blog has been a great example of a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing; I have spent the better part of my adult life in the APOLITICAL service to my country, and recently (the past 7-8 months) I have awoken to the reality of a crisis based on the supremecy of our founding document being subverted and ignored. The constitution, I had thought, was hallowed/revered by all parties and citizens of this nation. I was wrong. Some would have us look the other way, some would adhere to parts and ignore others, some would forgo the blessing of our heritage for uncertain short term gain at the expense of our progeny. I, of course, consider the liberal-left the primary offender but the other extreme has done similarly.

    The National Organization for Women has offered nary a peep as to the gross offenses on a billion womens’ basic human freedoms in the Islamic world. Why?

    Those that would (should) praise the significant accomplishments of black people have said NOTHING about Justices Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. Why?

    AG Holder has stated that we are “nation of cowards”. Perhaps we are but for reasons that he did not intend.

    -Noz

  36. Leo,
    Thank you. Now I understand why Chris Matthews and the like continue to use the phrase native born citizen when discussing the eligibility issue instead of natural born. They try to make the two statements equivalent, but they are not. In my mind, native born means born in the USA. Natural born means born in the USA of two parents who are US citizens. If you are natural born, you are also native born. But being native born does not make you natural born.

  37. 1868 to 1874. That’s 6 years (not 12) after the ratification of the 14 Amendment.

  38. Diane Bridges Says:

    Dear Leo,

    Would all previous U.S. Presidential candidates (including elected Presidents) who likewise signed the Arizona document swearing to their compliance with the eligibility requirement which they could not legally have known to be true to a certainty, be likewise guilty of the same crime?

    Diane

    [Ed. To a certain extent, yes. But with Obama it’s more pronounced because he is a lawyer from one of the top schools (Harvard), was on the law reviews and eventually became a Constitutional Law professor. Whereas some of the other politicians who swore he was eligible have some wiggle room in that they do not have the same level of Con Law experience he does.]

  39. Joe The Blogger Says:

    Leo,

    Clark Hamblin is an Arizona resident and has an active case in the Arizona Courts based on Barack Obama’s false swearing of eligibility to be POTUS. I’m sure that there are people out there who would be willing to finance you to act for Clark in this matter. Clark is a real American hero – a Vietnam vet who has fought a lonely and valiant fight to get this matter addressed by the Arizona Courts. If you were to join forces with Clark, then America would have the ‘dream-team’ to effect deliverance from the current nightmare. I haven’t consulted with anyone over this suggestion. It just seems right.

  40. constitutionallyspeaking Says:

    Hi Leo,

    Thank you for all you have done to help protect the constitution, this one is for you and all the patriots who are fighting to save our constitution.

    An Open Letter to the Mainstream Media & Conservative Radio Hosts:

    You don’t know me, yet you act as if you are above me.

    You don’t know me, yet you mock me.

    You don’t know me, yet you sit in judgement of me.

    In a world as complicated as the one we live in today, we must remain ever vigilant to the values, beliefs and wisdom of our founding fathers. As journalists and national media hosts, under the constitution, it is your job to to protect the Constitution. Freedom of the press was to be the tool that helped protect the people from government tyranny ever happening, yet you have turned your backs to us and for what reason.

    When you pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are worth more than others, you are going against every fiber that great document was written on.

    When you pick and choose which parts deserve your reporting, you are desecrating the life and blood of every American Soldier who has fought & died for your freedoms.

    What will you say I wonder when our brave men & women return to a country that is less free than the one they were fighting in. When those foreign nations are freer than the one they have returned to.

    When the qualifications for the highest political office of our nation are no longer held reverent, then there is nothing left.

    When the people no longer have the right to a legitimate election of legitimate candidates, we are no longer a free nation.

    When the one holding the highest office of the land is not made to adhere to the laws of the land, we are no longer a free nation.

    So, let there be an Emperor

    Let there be Czars

    For we no longer have a media to protect the people afar.

    Sincerely,

    An American Patriot for the Preservation of the Constitution

  41. Leo, I have a copy of the document that Obama used to gain ballot access in the state of WV. He signed a statement that he ‘is a candidate in good faith and eligible to hold office’. Guess what? Guilty of false swearing. But isn’t it difficult to prove intent?

    THis document plus the fee are what he supplied in a contract with the state of WV and in exchange he received presidential preference primary ballot access. Could not this contract be set aside on the basis that he misrepresented a material fact?

    In the state of WV, ANY PERSON can file an election complaint. Does not need to be a citizen, and it can be done at any point. I had been working hard, without benefit of an attorney, to prepare a complaint until I got caught up in the tea party movement which broke my momentum. However, now I believe the timing is excellent to submit the complaint. Do you have any advice? I am a resident of NJ, my mother is a resident of WV.

    I actually did speak with an attorney in WV, whom I thought would be sympathetic, but was somewhat discouraging because of the political climate in WV. He did not offer to help me and I did not discuss my thoughts about the contract approach. The thing that is a bit problematic, technically, in WV is that Obama LOST the primary against Clinton AND he lost to McCain in the general election. He was not elected despite his misrepresentation.

    I do believe that Obama has misrepresented himself, because he KNOWS that his background is an exception at best to the natural born citizen clause and the issue should have been subjected to a public evaluation, not hidden behind closed doors (Obama and whoever is behind him). I admit that is cryptic and conspiratorial.

    Please contact me through my email if you are interested in responding. I’ve been following you since November!

    [Ed. How can a Con Law professor sign such a document in good faith? Honestly, I don’t believe there’s any justice to be had through the court system. I’ve lost all faith.]

  42. Stephanie Says:

    http://blogs.bet.com/news/newsyoushouldknow/obama-citizenship-concerns-put-to-rest/ “I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,” Hawaiian Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement.”
    Perhaps Obama & Dr. Fukino had the same civics teacher.

    [Ed see my latest blog for my response regarding the great legal oracle fukino.]

  43. Well, well look at what we have here:

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090727/BREAKING01/90727082/Health+department+tries+to+put+Obama+birth+issue+to+rest

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

    It wou;d seem that Chiyome Fukimo, took it upon herdelf to publicly declare Obama to be a natural born citizen….I wasn’t aware that she had the authority to do that (sarc)….It seems to me that she has placed a door wide open….The issue of natural born citizenship, thanks to Fukino, has now been brought out front and center….This is a good thing….What are you all prepared tp do about it?….I for one will be contacting that office and demanding a public retraction of the natural born citizen remark that she made….Has she opened herself up for litigation to force her to provide the evidence she used to make such a blatantly false determination?

  44. Leo:

    I have never had any reservations concerning Obama’s false swearing for the following reasons: Obama is a lawyer, and not only a lawyer, but a constitutional lawyer; as such Obama is aware that his admission concerning the non-naturalization of his father’s Kenyan birth violates his eligibility to attain to the Office of President. Moreover, he can be charged with false swearing when he took his oath before Chief Justice John Roberts. As I understand it, this adds up to perjury.

    Is false swearing about the truthfulness of a document the same as false swearing in taking an oath? I would think so!

    If Obama were really an excellent lawyer, he might even understand the time difference between the 14th Amendment and Minor v Happerset. Thank you for teaching us regular folks. It has been great to see your thinking over time, and the revelations. There has been Chester Arthur, your Marbury v Madison comments with aid from you sister, as I recall, and now the time difference. You have certainly helped place the Constitution in historical context.

    [Ed. It’s nice to see that people are grasping the historical relevance of yesterday’s blog post. Please see the follow today.]

  45. I think we may now be watching Congress, the political parties and pundits, and the MSM beginning to get a little worried about the eligibility issue. If the truth ever comes out that Obama is not an NBC, all of these so called independent news reporters and leaders are going to lose all credibility with the public and there will be a backlash against them. That is why they are screaming even louder about the birth certificate and calling anyone questioning the issue a nut job. At this point, this is as much about them as it is about Obama.

    [Ed. Very very strong point.]

  46. Leo. How can you say you’ve lost faith in the Courts, when the Quo warranto approach you put forward as the only way, has never been tried?

    Regards
    MarkR

    [Ed. It was tried. Many people write to Taylor and asked him to open a QW. He resigned his post. Incredible timing. ]

  47. Clark Hamblin Says:

    [Ed. Ed. Clark, you can expect nothing but the big dodge from the courts. In actuality the person who does is the Arizona AG… but if he fails at his job a citizen ought to be able to raise the issue but the Government does not want citizens to have any power to patrol the cult. Best of luck to you.]

    THE CLERKS in the courts are doing things that only low life slugs would do! I played the game by the rules and followed the law. I have Mr,
    . Obama in default correctly. The clerk that took my last filing has misdated it to the day previous to when I filed it, this happened at 3:50pm so how does a clerk stamp the wrong date on official court records all day long? Or was it only mine? Now I pull dow the filing from pacer and there is multiple copies of the same page. not once but twice to make it look like I filed extraniously to overload the file with BS. I assure you I am not that stupid as to do something like that. I have spent 7 months of my life and what little money I had to research and bring this case in the proper manor and I will not allow some pissant low level clerk put my case in the garbage. I will request a meeting with the Honorable Roslyn O Silver. I will get to the Clerk of the Court and demand some action be taken against this low life scumbag that is sabataging my filings! I am not going to allow this dirtbag to beat me when I have won the right to this default judgment fairly and legally. If the Defendant wants to file a motion to overturn it or reverse it than they have to do it by the rules. following is what I filed! Nothing more and nothing less and I did it within the 5 day time limit to file a reply, Ifiled two copies , one for the record and one for the Honorable Judge. I have a conformed copy, and now that copy does not conform to what is in the court record! Enough of this BS. here is what I filed, 10 pages and exhibits A-G that are in my hands and clear copies , not the crap that you pull down through Pacer.

    Case No. CV 09-00410-PHX-ROS
    before the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
    PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT
    BARACK OBAMA’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

    INTRODUCTION
    *Plaintiff has filed with the Clerk of this Honorable Court, a complaint (doc. #1), an amended complaint (doc. #4) and properly served the Court issued summons for same (doc. #3) along with proper and complete copies of the complaint and amended complaint afore mentioned as prescribed by the FRCiv.P Rule 4(e)(1), (doc. #7 and #8) and the applicable State ARCivP Rule 4.2(c), (doc. #23). This action was filed based on the allegation that the Defendant, Barack Obama (hereafter B.O.) committed the act of fraud by sworn false statement of material fact on the 30th day of November, 2007 before a Notary Public of the State of Virginia, and along with his Arizona committee Chairman, caused the same document, State of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (ARS 16-242 hereto attached as exhibit A, two pages) to be deposited within the Arizona Secretary of State’s office on December 13, 2007 at 3:01pm, wherein an abridgement of Plaintiff’s rights occurred. in violation of the United States
    (1)
    Constitution Amendment XIV , Section 1 and 2. At the time of the alleged action taken by the Defendant, he was acting in the exact manor as Defendant, John S. McCain, who by and through his highly esteemed counsel, Mr. David J. Bodney,
    ( listed in “Who’s who in American Law”, “The Best Lawyers in America”, and”Southwest Super Lawyers” ) has emphatically stated that “McCain was acting solely as a political candidate and a private person in his 2008 campaign” (doc. #18, page 11, lines 18 and 19) and Plaintiff is respectful of counsel’s credentials and is in full concurrence with that assessment that both Defendants were void of any action preformed in an official capacity or individual capacity on behalf of the United States Government invested by their United States Senatorial Position, with the addition that both Defendants’ action in this instant matter were taken under the color of Arizona statutes at Title 16 of the A.R.S.. Plaintiff’s assertion as to being under the color of State statute is confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Allwright 321 U.S. 649 (1944). The question before the Court in Smith v. Allwright was, is an action by a national political party “governmental action” for purposes of enforcing Article II and Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution? See Doc.#25, page 1, line 23 through page 2, line 18.
    *The Court, in Smith v. Allwright, examined whether the action of the political party was state action or private action. It was determined that since primaries were conducted by the party under statutory authority, the party was an agency of the state insofar as it determined the participants in the primary election. The party took its character as a state agency from the duties imposed on it by the state statutes, and the duties did not become matters of private law, simply because they were preformed by a political party.
    *Whereas, there exists no claim for relief that touches upon the United States Government, or any officer, agency, department, division or corporation, company, or other than the private persons of the two Defendants in this action, this action is purely a civil matter between three parties all acting in a private person capacity under authority granted by the State of Arizona Revised Statutes at Title 16. And whereas, there exists in this action no claim of any offence that touches on any
    * (2)
    official action by the “United States Government, nor Agency; Corporation; Officer or Employee Sued in an Official Capacity ((FRCiv.P Rule 4(i)(1)(2), nor a United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on the United States* behalf (whether or not the officer or employee is also sued in an official capacity)” (FRCiv.P Rule 4(i)(3). Also whereas, by the the DOJ website;
    *” Q. Can the Department of Justice provide legal assistance to private citizens?
    * A. No. The Department of Justice is not authorized to provide legal assistance to private citizens or to represent them, except in instances where the Department of Justice has determined it will provide representation to a person who has filed a complaint with the Department of Labor (“DOL”) under the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 and the complaint has been referred to us by DOL. “. (Copy hereto attached as exhibit B, three pages.).
    MOOTNESS OF THE DOJ APPEARANCE IN REPRESENTATION OF ** DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA
    *Whereas, this case is brought before this Honorable Court for an alleged action of fraud, by sworn false statement of material fact, perpetrated upon the Plaintiff by two Defendants that just, as an exculpatory issue, happened to be sitting United States Senators, does not make this an action against any of the afore mentioned (U.S. Government or its agencies, corporations, officers or employees) for the purpose of service of process in this action as stated above. Plaintiff asserts that a statement made within the body of a complaint does not change the character of the redress sought when no relief is sought in connection with that statement, and thereby does not change or alter the position in relation to the Defendants. ** **Whereby, for the preceding, there is no reason for the Plaintiff to serve any documents upon the counsel that now attempts to enter into this action in violation of their own dictates as demonstrated by exhibit B (hereto attached). And with the preceding being factual, this Honorable Court must disregard the attempt by unlawful representation to thwart the law and FRCivP in presenting an after the fact objection to Plaintiff’s proper second request for the Clerk of this Honorable Court to enter a lawful and proper judgment pursuant to Rule 55 (a)(b)(1). This default judgment requires no further review.
    *Furthermore, Plaintiff wishes to inquire as to why DOJ counsel for Defendant B.O. should not be sanctioned for their misrepresentation of the FRCiv.P to this Honorable (3)

    ourt at page 2, line 20 and page 3, line 1 and 2, of “President Barack Obama’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Default Judgment” (hereafter as BO’s O to Default) by deliberately omitting the rest of the quote which states as follows; “…for an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on the United States behalf (whether or not the officer or employee is also sued in an official capacity), “. Plaintiff asserts the rules are the whole rules, not just the part that opposing counsel likes or serves their purpose.

    DOJ COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT BO IMPLIES CASE ABSURD OR FILED FOR PURPOSE OF HARASSMENT?

    *Plaintiff, now presents to this Honorable Court substantial prima facia evidence of the alleged sworn false statement of material fact executed upon exhibit A which is hereto attached in order to clarify the real case or controversy which is before this Honorable Court.
    *1. Docket #4, paragraph 10-12 statements by reference here, are now presented as exhibit C (5 pages) and is hereto attached along with a copy of email communication (request, no use of subpena) with Mr. Bill Thompson, owner of “eyeonbooks.com”. These admissions by the Defendant BO, to a reasonable mind would bring the conclusion that more likely than not, which is the bar in a civil case at law, that the Defendant has admitted dual citizenship. Plaintiff is in posession on the audio version also if this Honorable Court so requests.
    *2. Docket #4, paragraph 22 and 23 statements by reference here, are now presented to show that Defendant BO should have, or did and does know the requirements of the United States Constitution in respect to the sworn false statement of material fact executed upon exhibit A (hereto attached). Defendant BO’s abbreviated resume, placed on the internet for public consumption at, http://www.barackobama.com/about/ , paid for by “Organizing for America” a project of the DNC, is hereto attached as exhibit D, two pages.
    *3. Plaintiff attaches hereto, as exhibit E, 2 pages, a copy of Senate Resolution
    (4)
    511, which is cosponsored by Defendant B.O., agreed upon and presented to the citizenry of the United States on April 30, 2008. Plaintiff asserts that a reasonable mind, asked to review same, would properly come to the conclusion that Defendant B.O.is in agreement with the concept that to be a “natural born citizen” requires Two (2) parents which are citizens of the United States and to be born in a sovereign territory of the United States (United States soil). This is not the condition of Defendant B.O.’s birth by self admission, which shall be further expanded in the following. In other words, it is more likely, than not, that Defendant B.O. is not a “natural born citizen” as required on the ARS 16-242 filed with the Secretary of State of Arizona (see exhibit A hereto attached) and conversely, more likely, than not, a dual national citizen at birth.
    *4. Docket #4, paragraph 47 by reference here, Plaintiff further presents the download of the 4 page “fight the smears. com” article “The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate”, hereto attached as exhibit F, 4 pages, which is odd in that there is really no text on four pages that is downloadable except for the image of the “certificate of live birth” which has the authentication number blacked out ( a violation of law) and is clearly marked in the border that, “Any alterations invalidate this certificate” (making it moot), but bearing a statement about the 1948 British Nationality Act governing Defendant B.O.’s citizenship that is superimposed over the image of the document. A reasonable mind would properly conclude from review of this, that Defendant B.O. is, more likely than not, a dual national citizen at birth, and not a “natural born citizen” as required on the ARS 16-242 as is filed with the Secretary of State in Arizona, a publicly obtainable document.
    *5. Docket #4, paragraphs 48 and 49 by reference here, Plaintiff further presents the download of the 3 page “FactCheck.Org”, Annenberg Political Fact Check website article “Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?”, hereto attached as exhibit G, 3 pages. On page 1 of this document near the bottom is the answer to that Title question, which is “No. He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 21st birthday.” Any reasonable mind would properly draw the conclusion from review of
    (5)
    that answer, that Defendant was indeed a dual national citizen at birth, and most likely, not more likely, a dual national citizen at birth, and not a “natural born citizen” as required on the ARS 16-242 on file with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.
    *6. Plaintiff, by reference to docket #25, page 10, line 25 through page 12, line 8, reasserts how people know what a natural born citizen is, it is not a dual national citizen as Defendant B.O. has stated he is and allowed to be stated on his behalf and allowed political groups to pay for the advancement of that self admission time and again. Plaintiff asserts that the falsely sworn to statement of material fact on his filed ARS 16-242 along with Defendant’s officially expressed opinion in SR 511 (exhibit E), and Defendant’s self admitted dual nationality, are at irreconcilable opposition, therefore someone is not telling the truth. As for Plaintiff’s self, Plaintiff sides with the founders of this great republic we call the United States of America.
    *7. There has been no rebuke of these facts as to date from either Defendant B.O. or counsel, only the repeated statement of his place of birth and never any attempts and successes to dismiss cases on standing and never on Merit, odd after some 30+ cases filed, to say the least.

    *PLAINTIFF SEEKS DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST A PRIVATE PERSON ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW

    *Whereas, Plaintiff has provided this Honorable Court with an Arizona Secretary of State, certified, legal copy of the document which bears the alleged sworn false statement of material fact, and that document specifies the exact moment in time of the alleged (doc. #4, paragraph 35) violation of Arizona law and abridgment of Plaintiff’s rights to be at 3:01pm on December 13, 2007. It is well established and indisputable, that at that moment in time, the Defendant in this case was a United States Senator, he preformed the act of sworn affirmation that he met all of the requirements contained within the ARS 16-242, required by the State
    (6)*
    statutes, for the placement of his name onto the Arizona 2008 election ballots.
    *That action, is in no way required by, nor limited to, United States officers, agencies, companies, et cetera directly nor indirectly in an official capacity nor individual capacity duty on behalf of the United States. That action is, however, as counsel for Defendant John S. McCain, positioned identically so, in their alleged fraud, has concurred, a solely “private person” action. That action is however, in this case, taken and executed under authority derived from the Arizona statutes of Title 16 (ARS) and as held by the Supreme Court (by reference to page 2, lines 11-22 of this reply) are actions taken under the color of law as prescribed by 42 USC @ 1983, 1985. That action, giving rise to a change in employment classification at a future date, illegally, does not negate the earlier action nor change the factual circumstances of that action, nor the nature of this instant case.

    *DOES DEFENDANT B.O. MEAN EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS?

    *Defendant B.O., January 11, 2009; “Obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law.” Also “That doesn’t mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that doesn’t mean they are above the law.” Plaintiff asks what does Defendant mean?
    *Plaintiff inserts by reference here, docket #4, paragraph 56 through 64.

    * THE LEGAL CONUNDRUM OF “STANDING” AND
    ****THE PERFECT CRIME

    *It is apparent that if anyone, either alone or by conspiracy, can manage to perpetrate a fraud upon everyone, then the perpetrator[s] is [are] legally insulated from prosecution for that fraud in a civil action by “standing”, by any one of the victims; everyone that is victim of that fraud is harmed generally and their grievance is generally available to everyone (or generally unavailable by the doctrine of standing); because none of the victims can ever obtain “standing” due to a lack of
    (7)
    individualized and or particularized injury caused by that fraud; if that fraud violated the victims rights, then the doctrine of standing can be used to violate the victims rights completely.

    *****CONCLUSION

    *Plaintiff has filed a proper complaint for the legal action initiated against two private persons for the allegation of a fraud perpetrated, which Plaintiff alleges is the causal action of the resultant unlawful abridgment and deprivation of his Constitutional and federally protected rights by two private persons acting under the color of Arizona State statutes at Title 16 of the ARS.. Plaintiff has properly served the court issued summons and all pertinent documents to the Defendants named in this action in accordance with the appropriate rules of procedure and in a timely fashion for each. Plaintiff has filed with the Clerk of this Honorable Court the required proof of service and certificates of service, respectively for same, as is reflected in the Court record for this action.
    *Plaintiff asserts that pursuant to FRCiv.P Rule 8(e) “Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”, and Plaintiff further asserts that “to do justice” in this instant case there can be no other way to construe this action than in the manor consistent with that intended filing of the complaint which is described in the foregoing.
    *Plaintiff asserts that opposing counsels’ citation of a statement, taken out of context, that is in fact, a statement of a hypothetical progressional fact, based on a speculated finding, residing in the body of a responsive memorandum, hardly has the effect of changing the requested relief in this action nor the true nature of Plaintiff’s proper pleading filed for action against two private person Defendants acting under the color of law, authorized by Arizona statutes.
    *Plaintiff asserts that the untimely filing, by a prohibited counsel, for the Defendant B.O. must not have any effective action in this matter before this Honorable Court and must be stricken from the record with the stipulation that
    (8)
    any further filings in this case before this Honorable Court on behalf of Defendant B.O. be made in propria persona or by properly obtained counsel.
    *The substantial prima facia evidence of the alleged fraud (doc. #4, paragraph 31) presented in this reply and attached exhibits, Plaintiff asserts, meets or exceeds the civil action bar of certainty for a finding of guilty on that allegation, and further, that finding provides for the impetuous finding of guilty for the remaining allegations in the Plaintiff’s amended complaint.
    *Whereby, requested here, nunc pro tunc, is Plaintiff’s request of this Honorable Court for the entrance of doc.#26 (Plaintiff’s 2nd request for default judgment) pursuant to FRCiv.P Rule 55 (b)(1) as is consistent with the law.
    Respectfully submitted to this ******* Honorable Court and
    the Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

    Date: this day of July, 2008
    in propria persona
    Clark Hamblin, Plaintiff

    [Ed. snipped private info.]

    ** CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    *I, Clark Hamblin, Plaintiff, in Propria Persona, do certify that I have filed with the Honorable Court in this matter, the original and one copy of the attached documents by personally delivering same to the Clerk of said Court on the _____ day of July, 2009. I further certify that I have personally mailed copies of the same afore mentioned documents, by 1st class mail through the U.S.P.S. on the _____ day of July, 2009, mailed to:

    (9)

    Barack Obama
    1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20500
    Defendant

    Tony West, Ass. A.G. Civil Div.
    Timothy P. Garren, Dir, Torts Branch
    Mary Hampton Mason, Sen. Trial Counsel,
    Torts Branch
    Andrew D. Silverman, Trial Att., Torts
    Branch, Civ.Div.
    United States Department of Justice
    P.O. Box 7146
    Ben Franklin Station
    Washington, D.C. 20044

    Steptoe and Johnson, llc
    Notify; David J. Bodney
    Arron J. Lockwood
    Collier Center
    **** 201 East Washington Street
    Suit 1600
    Phoenix, Arizona85004-2382
    Attorneys for Defendant, John S.McMcCain
    In Propria Persona
    Clark Hamblin, Plaintiff
    Date: this_____day of July, 2009
    (10)

    THE ONLY thing I retracted is the name box and my personal info. I ask you after reading this do you believe that I am stupid enough to have filed 5 copies of the cover page a multiple copies of other pages to bring the total to 52 pages? I think not folks and this BS will not stand! I go to the Courthouse TODAY.

  48. Bro Leo, How long would I have to live in Wasington to file a Quo Warranto ? this is no wim** I would do this for my Country and God,Please ADVISE*** a TRUE PATRIOT PASTOR the likes of detication of a Wiley Drake also a ,DETICATED PASTOR*** Thank You Bro LEO, for your service to God and Country and HIS blessings Forever be upon you***I frimly believe that when you meet Jesus He will say Well done my GOOD and FAIThful servant , i BE aka ,Pastor Charlie, In His Service and that of Our Country, if we can keep IT>

    [Ed. You will never be allowed to bring a QW.]

  49. Seems as though Obama has stated he is aware the 14th Amendment does not cover “Natural Born”. He submitted S. RES. 511, along with Leahy, McCaskill, Coburn, Clinton and Webb.

    I quote,
    ” Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that,
    to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person
    must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;
    Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears
    in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution
    of the United States;”

    NOT DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION

    I guess a lot of senators agree that “natural born Citizen” in NOT defined in the Constitution as of April 30, 2008 when they voted on S. RES. 511.

    Also note their language includes “evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen'”

    They must like what the First congress said.

    [Ed. EXCELLENT POINT! Thank you for pointing that out. More evidence that the 14th Amendment does not define nbc status and this right from Obama and all of the Senate.]

  50. Why not write again to the AG in DC. He’s Obama appointee so he won’t be going anywhere soon. If he doesn’t play you can have your Court Hearing asking him to justify why not. Just a letter? Go on, you know you ought to.

  51. One of the places to look for the meaning of natural born citizen is to the U.S. Code, which states who is a citizen at birth. Natural born citizen cannot mean anything but what a person IS at the instant of birth.

    [Ed. The US Code has no authority to define a Constitutional term such as nbc. Furthermore, you will see that the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual also raises this issue as to Presidential eligibility.]

    U.S. law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html) is pretty clear.

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401Prev | Next § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    [Ed. You make the same mistake over and over. If all citizens were allowed nbc status then there would be no need to require the President to be something different than a Senator, but they did.]

    … the rest is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

    ——-

    U.S. law is based on English common law, not international law.

    Vattel was not even available to the Framers in English yet!!

    [Ed. The Vattel definition of NBC was used, word for word, by SCOTUS in the Minor case. Word for word. They also indicated that native born persons of foreign parentage had doubts associated with their citizenship.]

  52. [Ed. You make the same mistake over and over. If all citizens were allowed nbc status then there would be no need to require the President to be something different than a Senator, but they did.]

    … the rest is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

    —-

    Leo: Senators can be naturalized citizens; that is the reason they “require the President to be something different than a Senator.”

    [Ed. Of course Senators can be naturalized citizens, but this does not mean that the definition of natural born citizen = all citizens other those naturalized. The Supreme Court in Minor rejected the notion that natural born citizen was defined in the Constitution – therefore not even citizens born on US soil and given 14th Amendment citizenship are deemed – according to SCOTUS in Minor – to be natural born. If it was as simple as you are misleading us to believe, then the Constitution would define natural born citizens as any person acquiring their citizenship by being born here. Had the SCOTUS in Minor bought your line, then they would have said the definition of nbc is that part of the 14th Amendment which discusses native born citizens. But they did not say that… they said the Constitution does NOT define nbc and they also indicated that native born persons with foreign parents have doubts surrounding their nbc status. ]

    You know this — I am sure of it…

    [Ed. And you know what I just said is true. I’m sure of it.]

    …so I cannot understand why you seem to not recall this fact. Senators do not have to be BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. Presidents do.

    [Ed. The US Code has no authority to define a Constitutional term such as nbc. Furthermore, you will see that the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual also raises this issue as to Presidential eligibility.]

    Of course it does! Congress was given the power to create a law of naturalization;

    [Ed. Creating a law of naturalization does not define nbc. It does what it says it does, creates means by which people can be naturalized. It does not by doing so define something not mentioned in the law. The only time Congress tried to do what you say was in 1790 when they attempted to define nbc only to repeal that attempt in 1795 and they never attempted to define it again because they can’t.]

    now kindly tell me how it could have done that without knowing what natural born citizenship consisted of? You cannot create a law giving someone a citizenship status, unless you know they are NOT of that status to begin with, and then you have to know what that status IS in itself.

    [Ed. Your argument makes no sense because the person being naturalized is not a citizen at all, let alone a natural born citizen.]

    [Ed. The Vattel definition of NBC was used, word for word, by SCOTUS in the Minor case. Word for word. They also indicated that native born persons of foreign parentage had doubts associated with their citizenship.]


    Leo: SCOTUS uses “native” and “natural” born interchangeably in many of its decisions.

    [Ed. No they don’t. SCOTUS has NEVER come closer to defining nbc than in Minor. Nice try but you are wrong in spades.]

    [Ed. The Vattel definition of NBC was used, word for word, by SCOTUS in the Minor case. Word for word. They also indicated that native born persons of foreign parentage had doubts associated with their citizenship.]

    In fact, “common law” was cited, not Vattel,

    [Ed. Let me break it down for you

    Vattel said : “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”

    SCOTUS in Minor said: 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.

    “natives, or natural-born citizens” – that is the common phrase

    Vattell first stated it, and SCOTUS in Minor repeated it.]

    and you ignore the fact that a wife became whatever her husband was with regard to citizenship.

    And when the Congress refines common law and writes statutes stating who is a citizen at birth, you have a holding as to what natural born citizen means. That is the “elsewhere” that we have to go.

    [Ed. Disagree. If a statute is needed to sanitize one’s citizenship then one’s citizenship is not natural. That’s the whole point of using the words natural and born in the same sentence. There’s something not “natural” about your birth if a statute is needed to make you a citizen. Persons born in the US of US parents don’t need a statute, their citizenship is naturale.]

    But technically, yes, the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on this question.

    Unfortunately, anyone who could have brought a viable case to SCOTUS didn’t, and it’s too late to do so now. Nobody has standing.

    [Ed. I brought a viable case and Cport Wrotnowski brought a viable case. We both got screwed as did the country.]

    We’ll have to see if a future candidate will ever challenge another candidate.

  53. JinOhio Says:

    Brilliant! Thank you Leo. Still looking forward to the book.

  54. Leo wrote: “If it was as simple as you are misleading us to believe, then the Constitution would define natural born citizens as any person acquiring their citizenship by being born here.”

    ——
    And YOU are pretending Wong Kim Ark doesn’t exist.

    “In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion [169 U.S. 649, 663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’ 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151. ”

    You are simply choosing to close your mind to ALL reputable scholarship on the issue. No reputable student of history would even SUGGEST that American law is patterned on anything but English law and English common law. The law of the colonies, furthermore, regarding citizenship was also that birth in the United States established citizenship. And there is NO difference between native born and natural born.

    [Ed. Excuse me sir, using your train of thought then we wouldn’t need a Constitution, we could just use the common law. Need I remind you that the Framers started a new country and they picked and chose the kind of Government and laws they wanted carefully to DISTINGUISH themselves from the Crown… not to copy its oppressions.

    The decision in WKA is also tainted by the fact that the person who wrote was appointed by a usurper named Chester Arthur.

    But most important is the legal FACT that the case has a holding… the rest of the case is what is known as dicta… but it’s the holding which establishes the law… and the holding does not define natural born citizen… it is a very strict citizenship which is conveyed by WKA… it said persons born in the US to parents who were permanently domiciled here are US citizens. Obama’s father was never permanently domiciled here. Moreover, the holding does not convey NBC status only basic citizenship. So it’s not relevant to the issue of whether a person is a natural born citizen.

    As to the dicta concerning natural born citizens and subjects, I will remind you that we in the US are citizens, not subjects and the two phrases cannot in any rational way be viewed as the same.

    Now here is a quote from Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark for you to chew on:

    In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

    So, here we see that Gray believed the Minor Court to be making direct reference to the 14th Amendment when it said that the Constitutions does NOT define natural-born citizen. Gray also states that the Minor Court had to look elsewhere and in doing so they used the common law as an “aid”. Do I need to define aid for you? An aid is not the be all and end all of the issue, it’s simply an “aid”, a guidepost… some help in determining the issue but certainly not the law itself.

    Then Gray goes on to embarass his legacy by trying to counter his prior holding in the Elk case. I’ve dissected that previously for those readers who would like to bone up on Gray’s schizoid decisions.

    Also, Scalia said that the common law is dead recently.

    Readers of this blog have had the pleasure of reading my analysis of Wong Kim Ark on multiple occasions. I suggest you avail yourself of the research to educate yourself.]

  55. Leo wrote: “[Ed. Disagree. If a statute is needed to sanitize one’s citizenship then one’s citizenship is not natural. That’s the whole point of using the words natural and born in the same sentence. There’s something not “natural” about your birth if a statute is needed to make you a citizen. Persons born in the US of US parents don’t need a statute, their citizenship is naturale.]”

    No — you’ve got the entire idea wrong. You ARE a citizen at birth, period. The statute just codifies it so people can READ it.

    [Ed. No, you’ve got it wrong. If the citizenship was natural, it wouldn’t need to be codified. If you’re born on the soil to two US citizen parents no statute is necessary, hence the term NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. If you need a statute codify your citizenship then your citizenship is not natural. It may exist but doesn’t meet the strict requirements to be President.]

    It embodies the natural law. What you cannot do is go through a process; if you’re born, that’s it. No process. The statute doesn’t provide a process. It just states the reality.

  56. In Wong, SCOTUS says pretty darn clearly that if you’re born of alien parents, you are as much of a native citizen as is a natural-born citizen born of two citizens.

    U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’

    [Ed. Notice the exact language used here… “If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…” BUT NO MORE. Had the Court intended to say such a person is as much a “natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen” then that’s what the Court would have said. But that’s not what Gray said. He said “is as much a citizen”, he did not say “is as much a natural-born citizen.

    Furthermore, you’ve ignored the final and controlling language of the holding. Let me quote it for you:

    “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    Two IMPORTANT points as to this, the actual holding:

    1. It may be strictly limited to children of person’s “permanently domiciled” in the US. Obama’s father was never permanently domiciled here. That fact alone disqualifies allows this case to be distinguished from the fact pattern as to Obama. As Justice Gray stated unequivocally, the case was presented for the single question stated above. By its very own language the Court restricted the decision to the fact pattern before it which concerned Chinese residents faced with a treaty which did not allow them to naturalize and it only pertains when the persons are PERMANENTLY DOMICILED in the US.

    OBAMA SR WAS NEVER PERMANENTLY DOMICILED HERE.

    2. The case holding only confers “citizenship”, not natural born citizenship. ]

    Nowhere does it say that Wong Kim Ark could become President of the United States.

    It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher’s case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: ‘Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,-it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger [169 U.S. 649, 694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.’ Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster’s Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92.”

  57. Robert B. Davies Says:

    Robert B. Davies Says:

    April 11, 2009 at 6:20 pm
    Leo,

    I have a quick question about whether or not a criminal charge of fraud could be brought forward
    ,in any state, against Barack Obama, if his ballot candidacy filing application statements were fraudulent?

    Bob Davies

    [Ed. I believe they can be brought, yes. I just don’t believe he can be removed for them that way… not without impeachment or Quo Warranto.]

  58. Tanarg said “Unfortunately, anyone who could have brought a viable case to SCOTUS didn’t, and it’s too late to do so now. Nobody has standing.”

    It cannot be too late. Leo has explained that a quo warranto should be opened or brought or whatever the legal term is for that action. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in DC should act on this. The Arizona state attorney general should act on this.

    Saying it is too late is to concede defeat and forfeit our treasure (our U.S. and states’ Constitutions), and our liberty and freedoms along with them – what few remain, anyway. Don’t give up, pray, bring non-violent discussions into the public square. Educate your neighbors. We can make the public aware of this fraud one by one. There are actions being taken all over the country. Marches, town halls, resolutions at county commissioner meetings, meetings with county Sheriffs, state sovereignty resolutions, sound money bills in state legislatures. See http://www.CommitteesOfSafety.org
    There will be a Continental Congress this November, see http://www.CC2009.us
    Get involved to salvage your freedom and bring your state and therefore our country back to the Republic form of government where our sovereignty will be preserved.
    Run for precinct captain in your voting precinct. See http://www.WagTheDog2010.com for a brief explanation of that. Also, Tom DeWeese has materials available to explain that concept of ground-up reclaiming our Republic.
    Do you see that once the public puts enough pressure on elected and appointed officials to remove the usurper, that will be a giant step toward bringing our Constitution back into view. It will be examined, relearned by the baby boomers, learned by generation Xers. There are many other violations against our Constitution, but this must be one of the best ways to get it back. The fraud is so obvious.

    Our U.S. Constitution and our states’ Constitutions are worth so much more than any one of us is able to give. And yet, I am surrounded again with gratitude and awe that so many men and women — persons far better in character than I could ever be — they have given everything, trying to preserve the God-given liberties that are outlined in the great founding documents.

    The journalists and pundits who belittle our outrage, like the usurper, are apparently empty of sentiment, have no spark of emotion resembling appreciation of heritage, no hint of gratitude for the freedoms that we could enjoy thanks to the selflessness and courage of those better people who lived before. These who today brush aside the facts, calling them mere theories will never understand why we would rather stop breathing than fail to honor the monumental efforts that have gone into this 233-year-experiment in freedom.

    The investigative report “Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report” is incredible, isn’t it? It spells out in clear language what we’ve instinctively felt all along.
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

    There was no sense hoping that all of us who feel the pain of our ancestors’ struggles could tolerate this indecent fraud forever. Whether our ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War, were forced into citizenship through slavery, or left behind all their comfort to stand in line at Ellis Island after a long difficult journey, we sense each of their unique gifts to us through undefined memories that reside in our souls. It is impossible to describe how our hearts grieve now for their endless labor, their sacrifices, their very spirits, all being tossed aside for an agenda that serves evil and greed. I feel as if I would fall face down on the ground in shame if I were ever privileged enough to look into their eyes. It brings a mourning that rivals the loss of a parent or a sibling.

    “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.” Romans 8:26, NIV

  59. markcon Says:

    atleast give me a reply to this guy

    markcon says:
    July 29, 2009 at 6:37 am

    The court unequivocally stated in Minor that we should look at the nationality of the parents and if the parents are US citizens, and the child is born in the US, then the child is a natural-born citizen of the US. If the child is subject to a foreign nationality through a parent then there are doubts which were clearly expressed by SCOTUS in Minor. Obama’s father was NEVER a US citizen. Obama also admits that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. Obama chose the word “governed”
    Reply to this Comment

    *
    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    July 29, 2009 at 7:56 am

    markcon, there are some problems with citing Minor.

    First and most important is that it is taken out of context. The context in which the “doubt” language in Minor v. Happersett appears is in a section analyzing the the law before the adoption of the 14th amendment.

    [Ed. The dude is desperate. He’s trying to tell you black is white and white is black. The quote speaks for itself. Furthermore, this entity relies heavily on the SCOTUS case of Wong Kim Ark. In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray discussed Minor and stated:


    [169 U.S. 649, 655] In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ …

    There you have it, the hero of the Obama eligibility movement, SCOTUS Justice Horace Gray stated unequivocally in Wong Kim Ark that Chief Justice Waite (writing for a unanimous court) was construing – “in behalf of the court” – the very provision of the 14th Amendment.

    Dr. Conspiracy is an Obama shill. he’s not trying to get to the truth. He’s trying to confuse people. But he really stuck his foot up his own this time. Word up.]

  60. You know when you accuse someone of a crime, it is helpful to state the elements of that crime. Generally, it is a statement that is made willfully and in bad faith. If Obama believed he was eligible, then there can be no crime.

    [Ed. He couldn’t “believe” he was eligible. For there to be no crime, he would have to “know” he was eligible. He couldn’t know that because there was no clear definition. I’ll tell you what he did know. He knew it could be a problem and it is a problem. A true patriot woudl never have put the country through what he is putting us through.]

    You claim it is preposterous to think that Wong Kim Ark decided the issue of natural born citizenship. Well, no less an authority than the DISSENT in Wong Kim Ark thought that’s exactly what they were deciding. Fuller felt the majority was looking to common law (pre-14th amendment) and finding it to mean that anyone born in the US, even if their parents were here only for a few days, was a natural born citizen. And, he uses those words – “natural born citizen.”

    If the dissent in Wong Kim Ark thought that a reasonable reading of the case was that it decided natural born citizen, then it cannot be unreasonable for a constitutional law scholar to think the same thing.

    I can go on Lexis right now, or SSRN, or Google books and find dozens, if not hundreds of legal scholars saying that NBC is birth here, regardless of parentage. Against that view, we’ve got the birthers and the anti-anchor baby folks.

    [Ed. People are people no matter what you call them. Go back to your sandbox, this here proves that these people you call birthers and anchor baby folk threaten your stance. So you use sarcasm to belittle them because you legal arguments are not up to snuff. Just because you label them “birthers” doesn’t mean a damn thing. There is a wide body of opinion which includes many legal scholars who say he isn’t eligible. You haven’t done a head count of legal scholars. Some support and somedenies his eligibility. He knows that as much as you do and that’s why he could never swear he was, in fact, eligible. Believing you might be eligible is not the same as swearing that you are.]

  61. markcon Says:

    ok- sorry maybe just one more time– im not going to post there again unless you answer this- so this really is my last time

    markcon says:
    July 29, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    no need- your the one parsing-that quote was from children of citizen parents!!!–SCOTUS in Minor said: 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.

    they did not mix the words and meanings-

    ” Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that,
    to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person
    must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;
    Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears
    in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;April 30, 2008 S. RES. 511.(obama Leahy, McCaskill, Coburn, Clinton and Webb)
    If in minor- citizen = natural and native then there would be no reason for s res 511

    likewise minor 6 years after the 14th confirms that the 14th does not confirm nbc status on all citizens.the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”.
    In the Minor case, the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status. (citizen does not =nbc)
    If all citizens were allowed nbc status then there would be no need to require the President to be something different -but they did -otherwise there would be no distinct requirement to qualify. other than citizen-citizen can be a native with foreign ties unacceptable for the position.
    further more-
    in ark
    quote from Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark

    In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

    So, here we see that Gray believed the Minor Court to be making direct reference to the 14th Amendment when it said that the Constitutions does NOT define natural-born citizen. Gray also states that the Minor Court had to look elsewhere and in doing so they used the common law as an “aid”.
    If the citizenship was natural, it wouldn’t need to be codified. If you’re born on the soil to two US citizen parents no statute is necessary, hence the term NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. If you need a statute codify your citizenship then your citizenship is not natural. It may exist but doesn’t meet the strict requirements to be President-
    The case holding- Wong Kim Ark-only confers “citizenship”, not natural born citizenship and only to children of person’s “permanently domiciled” in the US.
    Had the Court intended to say such a person is as much a “natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen” then that’s what the Court would have said. But that’s not what Gray said. He said “is as much a citizen”, he did not say “is as much a natural-born citizen.
    Reply to this Comment

    *
    Bob says:
    July 29, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    they did not mix the words and meanings

    Again: Cite the cases where the phases are given distinct meanings. Donofrio is very long on what Minor doesn’t say, but very short on what other cases do say.

    If in minor- citizen = natural and native then there would be no reason for s res 511

    The rationale behind S.R. 511 is different, primarily politcally motivated, and all about exactly one person: John McCain.

    minor 6 years after the 14th confirms that the 14th does not confirm nbc status on all citizens

    Minor “confirms” nothing of the sort. Listening to someone else besides Donofrio might be educational for you.

    otherwise there would be no distinct requirement to qualify.

    There are many citizens who are not natural-born citizens. There are also a few who are born in the United States but not citizens.

    Had the Court intended to say such a person is as much a “natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen” then that’s what the Court would have said.

    The dissent in Wong Kim Ark disagrees with you:

    “I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency….”

    The dissent in Wong Kim Ark acknowledged the majority’s position leads to the conclusion that those in the born in the United States are natural-born citizens. Why can’t you?
    Reply to this Comment

    [Ed. The dissent does not acknowledge that the majority position grants NBC status. The majority holding states unequivocally that the the holding is strictly limited to the question before the court. Here is what was held, everything else is dicta. And Dicta is not controlling law, it’s just reasoning. Just as the Dicta in Minor is not firm law to be followed by stare decisis on the nbc the issue, the Dicta in WKA is also not stare decisis on the issue of NBC. Here is the question decided and precedent set in WKA, straight from the horse’s mouth:

    The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

    Notice the phrase “single question”. There’s no wiggle room. The question presented is stated… is WKA a citizen or not? That’s the single question. It doesn’t say the single question presented is whether WKA is a natural-born citizen.

    Additionally, the single question assumes the person was born of parents who were permanently domiciled in the US. Obama’s father NEVER met that criteria so WKA does NOT apply to the question presented by Obama’s eligibility.

    Moving on to the dissent. The dissent does not say anywhere that the “holding” pertained to the definition of NBC. The dissent makes note of the DICTA – which is not law – and takes issue with the DICTA as being wrong. It makes an extreme example of asking whether the Constitution bars a person like McCain, born of US parents abroad, from being President while allowing somebody like Wong Kim Ark, a person born in the US to Chinese Empire subjects to be President? He’s going to an extreme example in reference to the reckless DICTA in WKA which makes reference to NBC. So the dissent also makes reference to it.

    But the last paragraph of the majority opinion where the “single question” presented is discussed does not make reference to it.

    And for our purpose it proves that the issue of who is NBC and who isn’t is not so clear even to fighting SCOTUS judges. So at the very least, those saying the issue is cut and dry who at the same time quote from the dissent in WKA are being rather two faced by mocking the importance of the issue. The dissent makes clear the danger WKA posed to the nation by its reckless dicta.

    The dissent does not say that WKA can be President, the dissent uses the extreme of WKA being eligible to be President to counter the DICTA issued by Gray in the majority opinion.

    Do you have any idea how much DICTA exists in the history of US SCOTUS jurisprudence? If every word of every case was considered controlling law it would be a total mess. WKA is one of the longest most loquacious decisions in US history. But the only part which is considered precedent is the holding which by its very own wording is strictly limited to the exact circumstances and questions presented.

    Furthermore, WKA ought to be reversed. It’s crap and it was written by a man appointed by a usurper. The case sees Justice Gray going schizo on his own decision in the Elk case. Now that we know the President who appointed him was a usurper, a British subject at birth, history demands that we question why Justice Gray would make such an ass of himself trying to equivocate his correct opinion in the Elk case with his idiotic opinion in Wong Kim Ark. The two cannot co-exist. What happened that made Gray go schizo? Enquiring minds want to know.]

    Greg says:
    July 29, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    Not only did Gray not have a distinction between natural born citizen and native born citizen in mind when writing Wong Kim Ark, the dissent in that case thought he was deciding the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Go ahead, read Fuller’s dissent in Wong Kim Ark, I’ll wait:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html

    And, you’re lucky, the point I’m talking about is near the top. It starts out:

    “The English common law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was…”

    Fuller concludes that:

    “And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and GOVERNED THE MEANING OF THE WORDS ‘CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES’ AND ‘NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN’ used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”

    (I’ll let you look at the case to figure out what “this rule” is. Hint: it even applies to people born to parents who are only here a few days.)

    So, if even the author of the dissent in Wong Kim Ark believes that it decided the definition of NBC, why should we be expected to think otherwise?

  62. TooPlain Says:

    Leo,

    Have you seen this Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz’s fax referencing Cort Wrotnowski’s case? Does she give an accurate portrayal of the Wrotnowski case’s outcome at the Connecticut State Supreme Court level?

    http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obama-sec-of-state-connecticuit-fax-name-removed.pdf

    [Ed. She may not have a statutory duty to remove names from the ballots but she has a Constitutional duty to protect the Constitution. She failed that duty. The lower court defrauded Cort Wrotnowski with a bogus decision which I surgically dissected to which SCOTUS ran for the hills. Bysiewicz is full of crapola.]

    Also, added to the Arizona incidence that you cited, doesn’t this Rhode Island ‘Statement of Intent’ display yet another example of false declaration by BO, who signed that he is “eligible under the laws and Constitution of the United States to serve in the office of President of the United States if elected”.

    http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/rhode-island-obamas-signed-statement-of-intent-to-seek-the-nomination-of-president.pdf

    [Ed. Yes, this is another count. Good one.]

    Lastly, do you have any insight as to what has happened to “The Obama File” blog. It seems to be closed down now.

    [Ed. No idea.]

  63. From WKA:

    It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    (Note the words: “and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, ….”)

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

    (Note the words: “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence..”

    [Ed. Your comment assumes “natural born subjects” are the same as “natural born citizens”. They are not. When read in context with the other passages I quoted, espcially Gray’s reliance on Binney, it becomes clear that those who were deemed natural born subjects under British law would – at best – be deemed basic “citizens” under US law – not natural born citizens.

    You must grasp the understanding that we’re not subjects. And as you will see, the attitude at the time of the adoption of the Constitution makes the repulsion with being a subject clear. I will print for you now exactly what that attitude was straight form the mouth of David Ramsay – David Ramsay (congressman) (1749–1815), an American physician, historian, and Continental Congressman for South Carolina:

    A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF

    ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND

    PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE

    UNITED STATES

    By David Ramsay, 1789

    The United States are a new nation, or political society, formed at first by the declaration of independence, out of those British subjects in America, who were thrown out of royal protection by act of parliament, passed in December, 1775..

    A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people who also changed from subjects to citizens.

    The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.

    Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of nobleman. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure; but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.

    (Thanks to Kamira for the research on David Ramsay. This is not the first excellent source she’s brought forward. Nice work.)

    A natural born subject is an entirely different species of citizen than a natural born citizen. They sound the same – just as “native born” sounds like “natural born” but they too are not the same. ]

  64. Leo:

    I posted your false swearing argument onto another site for discussion and it has caused some stir (The site majors in the birth certificate).

    Following your quote is the man’s reply. He brings up the issue of women voting in the Minor case, and voting may be part of that case (I have not read it), but I would think that does not mean that the holding of the case concerning what SCOTUS says about natural born Citizens is false. Or if there is any truth to the man’s response how does this affect Minor? I really do need to read Minor. I feel like I am a little behind the 8-ball, but I do trust your judgment in this regard. I would like to reply to the man and insert any comment you may have. Thanks for your help and your time.

    Your quote:

    “Obama – the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.

    Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.”

    The response:

    So. LOL… if Minor v. Heppersteff is the last word on citizens, and Obama is guilty of “false swearing,” wouldn’t Obama also be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime connected to the his wife- after all, I bet we could prove she voted.

    And- if Minor is law- then women can’t vote.

    (Hmmm… perhaps Minor isn’t a case that carries Constitutional muster these days???
    Maybe??)”

    [Ed. The case was not overturned. The Constitution was amended so women could vote. The part of the case which discusses NBC is dicta. Dicta is not precedent but it is a guiding force and is considered by courts in making future decisions. The main importance as to nbc eligibility is that we have a unanimous opinion – later quoted and relied upon in Wong Kim Ark – which unequivocally proves that SCOTUS is on record as saying there is no definition of nbc in the Constitution so the 14th amendment citizenship does not automatically make one nbc. That’s what Minor stands for. You have to keep in mind that these talking heads in comments and blogs are not lawyers. Non-lawyers don’t usually have the necessary education to truly fathom the nuances involved. There’s a reason we go to law school and take bar exams.]

  65. Thank you, Leo! You are jewel!

  66. […] have written on this topic and it is abundantly clear that unresolved questions remain as to who can be a “natural born citizen”.  Supreme Court decisions indicate that there are […]

  67. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    Would you say constitutional professor Obama had “constructive knowledge” (which I think fits) or “actual knowledge” or another knowledge?

    ed. that’s an understatement…🙂 – Leo

  68. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    One case Perkins v Elg (1939), says Her parents immigrated from Sweden and her father naturalized a year later. He naturalized in the time frame of 1855 to 1922, when the the Act of Congress of February 10, 1855, was in effect, which declares, “That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen”

    So, Marie was born in New York, to two US citizen parents. SCOTUS, “after referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S.C.A.Const., and the Act of February 10, 1855”, and citing “controversy” declared her a “natural born citizen”.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: