With A Kwock Kwock Here And A Quack Quack There

Donofrio's Decoy Was Amateurish, But It Fooled A Few Really Dumb Ducks

This is a short follow-up post concerning the Congressional Research Memo, Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement, by Jack Maskell. This well written memo completely and comprehensively devastates the ridiculous Birther legal theories.

Leo Donofrio, Esq., aka The Paraclete, and major promoter of the two citizen-parent lunacy has launched a feeble counter attack against the memo,  quibbling about the phrasing of one sentence in the report regarding the 1920 SCOTUS case of Kwock Jan Fat v. White:

In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/

And in a petulant childish fashion,  Donofrio photo-shopped in the word Propaganda to the memo’s heading:

Donofrio objected to Maskell characterizing the parents as Chinese nationals when there was information in the decision which indicated the parents  were actually citizens. The plaintiff, Kwock Jan Fat was born in America, but because he was of Chinese origin, he had to comply with regulations which required a preinvestigation of his status as an American citizen.

There was a strict immigration policy in force regarding the Chinese, and this was necessary for him to be able to return the United States after a trip to China.  Three people provided information to the Department of Immigration that he was born in America, and thus a natural born citizen.  However between the time he left for China, and the time he returned, somebody provided anonymous information to the government that he was actually another person, born in China, not America.  Upon his return he was imprisoned and he filed a habeas corpus petition which made it to the Supreme Court.

One of the witnesses had provided information in the original preinvestigation application to the Department of Immigration that Kwock Jan Fat’s father, Kwock Tuck Lee was native born and a voter.

Ernest Michaelis, for twenty-six years a justice of the peace and for many years the official collector of fish licenses, testified, making reference, for purpose of identification, to a photograph of the petitioner. He said he had known the parents of the boy since shortly after he himself went to live at Monterey in 1879; that there were two boys and three girls in the family; that he had seen the petitioner frequently as a little fellow when he went to collect fish licenses (the boy’s father was a fisherman), and had known him ever since; and, referring to the photograph, he declared positively that he was sure of his identity and that he was born in Monterey. He added that the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.

However, the Court simply characterized the parents as permanently domiciled in the United States:

It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649.

Donofrio regards Maskell’s  characterization of the parents as Chinese nationals and “creative use of quotation marks” as part of a “Frankenstein inspired patchwork.” Maskell replied to this claim today, and as reported on Jonathan Turley’s legal blog:

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/23/holdings-dicta-and-stare-decisis/#comment-296985

I wrote to Maskell about Kwock; his response:

“I agree that case cite needs clarification to emphasize that Kwock and one witness did aver that his father was born in the United States. It is important, I think, that the Court only mentioned that the parents were permanently “domiciled” in the United States, and thus did not appear to rely on citizenship status, when they accepted the characterization of the Commissioner of Immigration that he was a natural born citizen.”

But, as I discovered, the SCOTUS may have been more legally precise in their description than it appears to us in hindsight. In 1920 The Geary Act was still in effect, and there appears to have been a legal presumption that persons of Chinese descent were . . .(drumroll) . . . Chinese. From Wiki:

The Geary Act, [1892] besides renewing the exclusion of Chinese laborers for another 10 years, also outlined provisions that required Chinese already in the U.S. to possess “certificates of residence” (as well as “certificates of identity” after the McCreary amendment was added) that served as proof that they entered the U.S. legally and had the right to remain in the country. The certificates of residence contained the name, age, local residence, occupation, and photograph of the applicant. The act placed the burden of proof of their right to be in the U.S. on the Chinese themselves, denied bail to Chinese in habeas corpus proceedings, made it the duty of all Chinese laborers in the U.S. to apply within one year for a certificate of residence, with a duplicate kept in the office of the Collector of Internal Revenue, and suitable penalties were prescribed for any falsification of certificates. Another of the Act’s provisions required two white witnesses to testify to a Chinese person’s immigration status. If any Chinese laborer within the United States without this certificate of residence was “deemed and adjudged to be unlawfully in the United States”, they could be arrested and forced to do hard labor, and be deported after a year.This was the first time ever illegal immigration to the U.S. was made punishable by such a harsh degree.

See also:

  • 1892 Geary Act: Congress extended all previous Chinese Exclusion Laws by ten years.  By requiring Chinese persons in the United States to carry a “certificate of residence” at all times, the Geary Act made Chinese persons who could not produce these certificates presumptively deportable unless they could establish residence through the testimony of “at least one credible white witness.”  Congress also denied bail to Chinese immigrants who applied for writs of habeas corpus.  Text
  • 1902: Congress indefinitely extended all Chinese Exclusion Laws.  Text
  • 1904: Congress made permanent all Chinese Exclusion Laws
  • 1943 Repeal: Congress repealed all laws “relating to the exclusion and deportation of the Chinese.”  Congress permitted 105 persons of Chinese descent to immigrate into the United States each year, and enabled persons of Chinese descent to become American citizens.   The 1943 repeal, however, was enacted a wartime measure to counteract enemy propaganda after China became an ally of the United States during World War II, with little acknowledgment of the injustice of the laws.  Neither then nor afterward has Congress expressed regret at its passage of the Chinese Exclusion Laws.  Text

http://www.1882project.org/history/

No such information appeared to be in the file, so while we can presume that Papa Kwock would have been found a natural born citizen based on his birth in the United States, it probably would have taken more the above out-of-court statement by Ernest Michaelis. Just guessing, but this is probably why the SCOTUS defaulted to  “when they were permanently domiciled in the United States.

Therefore, Maskell’s statement is not deceptive, and the natural born citizen status afforded Kwock Jan Fat was NOT based on the citizenship of his parents which was presumptively by law, that they were Chinese.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: Here and There. Here is, of course, Me, and The Birther Think Tank. There is, the other guys.

About these ads

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 29. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a poor little orphan Blue Jay named Squawky. I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

338 responses to “With A Kwock Kwock Here And A Quack Quack There

  • David Farrar

    Well, Squeeky,

    There is one other guy — well, two other guys: me and Maskell.
    Here again we have a case where the court “recognized” permanently “domiciled” in the United States as being a part of the equation that is required to produce a nbC.

    This court, as well as Wong, in exactly the same fashion, recognized the Minor’s court precedent of a two-citizen requirement.

    The only question left is: Who are you going to believe: Squeeky or your own eyes?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Fred Muggs

      Oh do you mean “domiciled” as in Barack Obama was “domiciled” in Hawaii at the time Barack Obama II was born in Honolulu in 1961?

      • David Farrar

        Muggs,

        It could mean “domiciled” as in Barack Obama was “domiciled” in Hawaii at the time Barack Obama II was born in Honolulu in 1961?

        But I think anyone who looks at this with an objective eye, as Squeeky seems to have, would see “domiciled,” especially when one couples the actual facts of these two case into the equation…”domiciled” means living in the community for an extended period of time — something a Kenyan national here on a student visa could never hope to achieve. If one had to put a number into this equation, I would say these two courts clearly recognized these two Chinese couples were within the jurisdiction certainly long enough to become naturalized had they not been precluded by statute from doing so.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

    • bob

      You shouldn’t speak for Maskell. I’ve communicated with him as well, and he would not agree with what you claim he believes.

      With respect to President Obama, his father married a U.S. citizen: that manifests an intention to stay in the United States.

      Regardless, Kwock Jan Fat in no way establishes any sort of requirement for natural-born citizenship. That portion of the case is dicta (as the case is about something else entirely). Maskell cited it only to demonstrate that no one thought the status of Kwock Jan Fat’s parents was determinative.

      And I notice you continue to refuse to answer a simply question about your own ballot challenge. You and Donofrio (and birthers generally) ought to know that acting like petulant children does not add to your sincerity; it weakens your cause.

      • David Farrar

        I see. So any court ruling you like and think will support your delusions is “precedent”, and everything I think important and supportive of my delusions is “obital dicta”. I am glad we got that all cleared up.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • bob

        My “delusions” are consistent with mainstream legal theory. What you think is important and supportive is believed only by birthers. Glad to have cleared that up.

  • Fred Muggs

    The courts beg to differ as does every legal scholar of import since the WKA decision.

    Remember this?

    Andrew C. McLaughlin’s Cyclopedia of American Government (1914)

    “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. A natural born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth or the citizenship of his father.* The two classes of naturalized and natural born citizens are thus mutually exclusive, and together constitute the entire citizen body of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment (see) as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 U. 8. 649) provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race the members of which are by law excluded from naturalization, are natural-born citizens. Under certain circumstances persons born outside the territorial limits of the United States are deemed naturalborn citizens, as for example, children of American citizens visiting or traveling abroad. The father must, however, at some time have resided in the United States. Only natural-born citizens are eligible to the offices of President and Vice-President.
    See Citizenship In The United States; Naturalization, Law Of. References: G. W. Garner, IntroN to. Pol. Sci. (1910), ch. xi; F. Van Dyne, CitizensHp of U. 8. (1904). ”

    You can find this book on Google Books and the definition is on page 496.

    *The laws have changed since 1914 when only fathers could pass on US citizenship to children born abroad. US citizen mothers didn’t obtain equal footing to pass on US citizenship until 1934 and the requirements for citizenship of children born abroad to US citizen parent(s) has been changed several times since then.

    This is one of hundreds of historical sources that give a similar definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen”. There are essentially no sources that say both parents must be citizens. Why would that be? Why is Wong Kim Ark quoted in definitions of NBC but Minor has only been quoted (incorrectly by Birthers) since late 2008?

  • David Farrar

    But Muggs,

    You and Mr. McLaughlin’s Cyclopedia of American Government have just proven my case.

    “The laws have changed since 1914 when only fathers could pass on US citizenship to children born abroad. US citizen mothers didn’t obtain equal footing to pass on US citizenship until 1934″…

    So if both parents now can pass on their allegiance; only a two US citizenship birth, subject to the jurisdiction therein, can result in only one allegiance at birth of the offspring — the strongest check against foreign influencing the Commander in chief of all our armed forces.

    YOUR HONOR: I rest my case.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • whatever4

    Nice find on the The Geary Act. It explains why the court kept emphasizing the white witnesses. Also shows how tough it was to prove ANYTHING if you were Chinese.

    • David Farrar

      It explains a lot more than that. It explains why theses two courts tried so desperately to deviate from what they all knew to be the very foundation of American birthright and America’s Exceptionalism.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Barack Obama Sr. meet the standard legal definition for being “domiciled” in Hawai’i at the birth of his son and his mother would meet any definition of the term (as well as being a US citizen). As you are using a non-standard definition, please provide some citation of a credible authority who shares your view. If you can’t or wont do this, please let us know why anyone should pay attention to anything you say.

    • David Farrar

      Yes, Slart-fast, by a misinterpreting Wong for over 100 years, Barack Sr. here on a student visa would probably be viewed upon by our present day courts as being “domiciled here. This is just another indication of just how far we have to go to regain our American birthright.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Fred Muggs

        Ah to go back to the wonderful 1850’s again where the Darkies were happy and gay and the sun shines bright on my old Kentucky home, on my Kentucky home far away.

      • Slartibartfast

        Mr. Farrar,

        So I take it you can’t find authority to support your position. I think you’ve got bigger problems than the Wong Kim Ark ruling… some guy said that there are two ways to become a citizen by birth–blood or soil–and that jus soli is what the US uses. You’ll have a hard time arguing that this guy doesn’t understand the Constitution considering that he wrote the thing.

        “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

        President Obama was born in the US, therefore it is unnecessary to further investigate his allegiance according to James Madison. Why should anyone believe that you know more about the Constitution than James Madison did?

      • David Farrar

        Muggs:

        “Ah to go back to the wonderful 1850′s again where the Darkies were happy and gay and the sun shines bright on my old Kentucky home, on my Kentucky home far away”.

        I am curious as to why you think this action racist. Do you know why?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Why, Slart-fact?

    I’ll tell you why; because you can’t tell me how, if both parents can now pass on their allegiance, is one born of one allegiance at birth, unless both parents are US citizens?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Where do you get the idea that allegiance to other countries matters in determining US citizenship at birth? It’s just a lie that you made up or repeated. Spiro Agnew’s father was an unnaturalized Greek citizen making VP Agnew a natural born Greek citizen. Do you hate this country so much that you are willing to give up our national sovereignty with regard to deciding who our citizens are? We fought a war to make sure that English law had no force here–yet you want to let the English (or anyone else) decide who gets to be POTUS. What an unAmerican schmuck you are.

    • David Farrar

      Slart-

      Is that it? Is that the only exception you kind find in the two-citizenship Rule in the long, long line of elected Presidents and Vice-Presidents? This one, and others — although I have not seen the proof of your assertion — are abborations, as is present in any system, as I am sure you well know.

      As to where I have suddenly come up with this one allegiance theory of mine, its all in the report, the new Congressional Report, and as explained by me somewhere in this web-presence..

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast

        Wow, you really are delusional, aren’t you? Well, at least you’re out there trying to share your crazy with others (and helping re-elect President Obama in the process). Do you understand that no one with even a passing acquaintance with rational thought believes you? Make up all the straw men that you want–it wont change the fact that you have no answer to Madison’s words:

        It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

        I guess we need to add the Father of the Constitution (as well as every judge and Constitutional scholar in our nation’s history) to the list of people who don’t understand our laws as well as you do. What a pathetic little troll with delusions of grandeur you are…

    • David Farrar

      Slartibartfast

      You can thank Leo Donofrio, Esq., for addressing your question about Spiro Agnew’s father’s nationalization date. “>Click here.

      Click here (see lines 5-8)

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Well, Starburst:

    I can name you a very long list of past presidents who thought as I do, and not as you do.

    If you would kindly cite your source, I will address your “Madison” quote.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • David Farrar

      Muggs:

      I have looked over your citation and could find no mention of your “Madison” quote. Perhaps you had better show me where it is? I have a pretty good idea where it came from. I am just wondering if you do?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • David Farrar

        Muggs,

        Okay, I see the quote. So tell me a little bit about the setting in which Madison is speaking here. What’s going on?
        I know, but I am willing to bet you don’t know, or haven’t bothered to look any further that the quote.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Fred Muggs

        David Farrar

        Yes, I am familiar with the context of the quote and what was being debated at the time but why don’t you tell us why Madison didn’t mean what he said when he said that “place was the most certain criterion of allegiance”?

        I notice you have quietly changed your position that almost all the president’s thought you must have two US citizen parents to most of the presidents had two citizen parents. Of course that is because you cannot find a single quote from any president or vice president to show that they agreed with your definition of natural born citizen.

      • David Farrar

        Muggs:

        I will bring this altogether in the end; trust me.

        Now you stated you were familiar with the context of the quote and what was being debated at the time. What was the context, and what was being debated at the time; and what was Madison part in that debate, given that context?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Fred Muggs

        Nope, I asked you first and I am not the one pushing a definition of “natural born” that it not supported by a single serious Constitutional scholar. Good luck winning with your lead attorney, Orly Taitz. Now tell me again how many cases Orly has won?

      • David Farrar

        So you don’t know the venue in which Madison was speaking; do you?

        I will give you a hint, since it was you who open the door by quoting Madison out of context; it was during an impeachment proceeding, and Madison was representing the Respondent, not himself.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

    • Fred Muggs

      Your research is not very good is it? First it was not an impeachment proceeding.

  • dentalchair@tmail.com

    Mr. Ex Animo seems to ignore the fact that President Obama’s mother was indisputably a citizen of the United States when he was born. I guess to Mr. Ex Animo the status of the mother is irrelevant.

    And Mr. Ex Animo should take a look at section 214 of Emereich de Vattel’s writing. I would be interested in his brilliant legal analysis after read that section.

    By the way, using a closing that no one has used in hundreds of years does little more than demonstrate that someone is a quack. Or is that Qwock.

    • David Farrar

      No, Mr. Dental,

      I haven’t ignored the fact that President Obama’s mother was indisputably a citizen of the United States when he was born. It is you who has ignored the fact that by his own admission, Barack Obama had dual allegiances at birth. Something a natural born Citizen can never have at birth.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast

        Sorry Mr. Farrar, but you don’t get to make up the law–there is nothing that says that a natural born citizen can’t have dual allegiances, just that they must have US allegiance (and jus soli allegiance is sufficient to make a person natural born).

      • David Farrar

        What Start —

        You think just because someone is born in this country at birth, they somehow are bestowed an American birthright from thin air? Where is the exceptionalism in that? That is what mere subjects in an monarchy can expect. That is why it really didn’t matter in English common law where you were born. You were a mere subject to the realm no matter where you where born.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast

        Yes, I think that someone born in America has an American birthright* and, what’s more, James Madison thinks that part of that birthright is natural born citizenship. English common law is very clear that anyone** born in English territory is a natural born subject. If we consider someone (someone white, that is…) born in, say, 1732 in the colony of Virginia that person would clearly be a natural born subject of the crown and the colony of Virginia. When, in 1776, another natural born subject of the Virginia colony wrote a document proclaiming the autonomy of a group of people living in a geographic area which included Virginia, the person in question would have become a natural born citizen of the State of Virginia and the United States. This person could then (provided they satisfied the other requirements) run for the office of the presidency. You seem to believe that in an alternate reality where the grandfather clause was never added (if, say, the first draft of the eligibility clause had been used) that this person would not have been eligible for the presidency and that the class of natural born subjects of the Colony of Virginia the moment before the Declaration of Independence became “official” wasn’t exactly the same as the group of natural born citizens of the State of Virginia the moment after. Personally, I think the idea that President Washington wouldn’t have been eligible for his office without the grandfather clause and the notion that he and President Jefferson weren’t natural born citizens/subjects of Virginia every day of their lives to be ludicrous.

        * Logically this is what is know as a tautology–something that is self-evidently true. I point this out because, as a birther, I expect you to argue against the obvious in an attempt to support your lies.

        ** diplomats, enemies, yada yada yada…

      • David Farrar

        Slart:

        “Sorry Mr. Farrar, but you don’t get to make up the law–there is nothing that says that a natural born citizen can’t have dual allegiances, just that they must have US allegiance (and jus soli allegiance is sufficient to make a person natural born)”.</blockquote)
        But I haven't made it up. Your suggestion: that a native born citizen, something very close to Hamilton's “a Citizen,” now offers a stronger check than an American birthright of one allegiance of blood and soil is clearly incorrect and will not stand true judicial scrutiny.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast

        Mr. Farrar,

        I haven’t said anything of the sort–you’re just making up requirements that aren’t in the Constitution. The Founders believed that “natural born citizenship” provided a strong check to the admission of foreigners to the presidency. They never said that it was the strongest possible check on allegiance. In any case, blood allegiance sounds like how a monarchy works–what the founders wanted to avoid. Why do you hate the Constitution so much?

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    VP Agnew, President Jefferson, and President Arthur all had citizenship claims of some sort from other nations. I believe there were a handful of others, but as it is the opinion of every relevant authority in our nation’s history (save the majority in Dred Scott) that this is irrelevant to determining natural born citizenship, I don’t really care. In your fantasy world, however, if VP Agnew and the others were an “abboration” (sic), then why should President Obama be treated any differently than Jefferson, Arthur, Agnew, et al. were? Seems like you’ve got a pretty big double standard there…

    • David Farrar

      Why should Obama be treated any differently? He isn’t being treated any differently. The last time I checked, John McCain was white, and it was Obama who co-signed the legislation to check his natural born Citizenship status in Congress.

      Now let me see your list…you still haven’t offered any documentation as to your claims. But President Jefferson was a US citizen when the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed. Therefore, he was able to take advantage of A2S1C5 grandfather clause. Arthur, as we all know, took steps to hide his fathers birth by giving orders to burn all of his papers after his death. Agnew is something you are going to have to cite before I waste time addressing that one. Oh, and then there is Barack Obama.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    What book was that, bob?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Okay, where do you want me to go in this publication?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • bob

      Where in your PTO does it say that if the State of Georgia denies your ballot challenge that you will acknowledge that President Obama is a natural-born citizen and eligible for the office he currently hold?

      • David Farrar

        Bob,

        Anyone who has actually read my PTO knows the answer to your question.

        But I will most certainly agree, if the court grants us ‘standing’ so we can get an actual decision based on the merits of the case; and the decision goes against me; I will, of course, appeal to a higher court. If the decision is not reversed, I will be forced to agree that given the facts known at the time, and under present law, Obama met his Constitutional requirements to take the oath of office of the President of the United States.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • roadburner

    hi david.

    still at it i see :D

    have you actually read maskell´s report? it´s makes very interesting reading.

    please bear in mind, this was written and broadly researched by people well versed in the constitution from a legal standpoint.

    mulgere hircum

    roadburner.

    • David Farrar

      roadburner,

      Where is Alexander Hamilton mentioned in this new report, or the motion he made to have a “Citizen” be able to qualify to run for the presidency, and which was unanimously voted down without comment in favor of John Jay’s “stronger check”motion carried to the Constitutional Convention by its chairman: G. Washington. Mysteriously, it has all been left out of Maskell´s report.

      Now I wonder why?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • bob

        Not really. You have the procedural history wrong, but the report does explain how the Committee of Eleven changed the language.

        It also notes that Vattel was cited exactly once (on a subject other than citizenship) in the founders’ notes and at the ratifying conventions.

      • roadburner

        david,

        possibly because hamiltons motion was a motion, no more, and was simply a proposal and carries no legal weight.

        much like M vs H has no weight in the definition of NBC status.

        that is unless you know something regarding M vs H that the rest of the legal profession doesn´t.

  • David Farrar

    bob & rr

    You guys are simply wish-guessing.

    This report’s primary purpose was to obscure this fundamental relationship between Hamilton’s motion of a “Citizen” and the clear and unanimous intent of the Constitutional Convention delegates to adopt Jay’s “stronger check” of a natural born Citizen.

    This report is nothing by government sponsored propaganda.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • bob

    “You guys are simply wish-guessing.”

    Oh, the irony.

    You’ve just described birthers perfectly.

    But, hey, if the CRS report is just “government sponsored propaganda” why don’t you CITE SOME SOURCES and prove it wrong?

    • roadburner

      bob,

      i´ve conversed with david before on this site, and come to 2 conclusions.

      1) if he finds a question a bit too close to the mark and is unable to answer without contradicting himself, he will avoid answering like his life depended on it or change the subject as fast as he can by answering with a question. don´t ever expect a straight answer from him.

      2) if jesus christ himself came to earth with a letter confirming president obama´s NBC status that was signed by god, he wouldn´t accept it, and would probably consider god to be some liberal and part of the conspiracy.

      funny how those who proport to want the constitution to be upheld and the law to be obeyed are the ones who disregard and wish to change it when the guy they didn´t vote for gets democratically elected.

      sad really

  • roadburner

    david,

    this is where your `propaganda´ came from..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service

    i suggest you pay attention to the paragraph titled `mission´.

    mulgere hircum

    roadburner

    • David Farrar

      You want to box me in in this discussion using wiki as your source? You have got to be kidding me?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast

        David,

        Considering that you have no sources at all and the fact that you are so hamstrung by your profound lack of understanding and incompetence that it is not necessary to box you in, it is not necessary to defend roadburner’s link, but I would point out that if Wikipedia is wrong in this particular case (as you imply) it should be easy for you to find evidence of it–absent evidence I think that any rational person would take a Wikipedia article (with references to primary sources) over the word of some guy on the internet who is obviously delusional. Just my opinion.

  • David Farrar

    “Slartibartfast

    “December 5th, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    “Mr. Farrar,

    “I haven’t said anything of the sort–you’re just making up requirements that aren’t in the Constitution. The Founders believed that “natural born citizenship” provided a strong check to the admission of foreigners to the presidency. They never said that it was the strongest possible check on allegiance. In any case, blood allegiance sounds like how a monarchy works–what the founders wanted to avoid. Why do you hate the Constitution so much?”

    Well, by extension, yes; it does. A ‘strong check’ will always be the stronger of the two presented, leading inevitably to the “strongest check”.

    ex animo
    davdifarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    You are completely wrong. “A strong check” and “the strongest check” are two different things. While the strongest check is a strong check (if anything is a strong check). The Founding Fathers were highly literate men–if they had meant “the strongest check” they would have said that and not “a strong check”. Pretending that the two things have the same meaning only demonstrates your own lack of understanding.

    • Fred Muggs

      Slartibartfast

      Funny, the Birthers use a very similar incorrect reasoning in their interpretation of Minor v Happersett.

    • roadburner

      slartibartfast,

      i had the same problem with david a while back.

      seems he´s convinced that apart from NBC and naturalised, there is a super-secret third category of citizen reserved for presidents he doesn´t like.

      despite asking him where one might find the legal definition of the SSTC, he was unable to, and insists there just is.

      it would seem that his opinion (and that of second rate lawyers like taitz, berg, corsi, etc that have all failed 100% when addressing the subject) trumps all the constitutional lawyers and experts who have all said that the case is otherwise.

      still, i must say his dedication to this quixotic cause is quite admirable, even if it´s misplaced.

    • David Farrar

      Slart,

      Anyone who is familiar with John Jay’s political outlook, his life’s work and the fear he consistently reflected in his correspondences throughout his life of foreign intrigues and undue influences within our national government, would know when John Jay spoke of a “strong check:, he was seeking the “strongest check’ possible, that being born subject to this jurisdiction, of a US Citizen father.

      If this was not so, Maskell would not have so articulately avoided the use of Jay’s “strong check” reference in his Propaganda Report.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • roadburner

        david,

        it makes not one iota of difference if john jay wanted strong checks or even french toast for breakfast, it didn´t make it into the constitution and is therefore irrelevent to the subject discussed – your presidents status as a natural born citizen of the united states of america.

        as a point of historical interest, yes, jay´s opinions bear looking at and discussing.

        law, precedent, and the constitution all say barack hussein obama is your president and commander in chief. i suggest you get over it, and just vote against him in the next election in 2011, because he isn´t going anywhere before then, no matter how many `any day now´ moments the birther movement wishfully predict.

  • Slartibartfast

    Jay may have thought or believed that–I have my doubts (in particular, what was the risk which was ameliorated by a person having citizen parents?)–but it certainly didn’t make in into the Constitution. The Constitution is clear–anyone born in the US* is a (natural born) citizen. Since we know that the 14th Amendment didn’t change the law (for any white person anyway), every white person who was born in the original colonies and alive at the DoI and every white person born in the United States thereafter were natural born citizens. You are arguing that the majority in Dred Scott was right–are you so ignorant as to be unaware that you are passionately supporting the mother of all racist arguments?

    *enemies, diplomats yada yada…

    roadburner,

    I think the two words that best describe the birthers are “Quixotic” and “hatriot”. For anyone to still be peddling birther fallacies after 3 years without a single meritorious argument (and too many lies to count) requires some serious stubbornness (and even more capacity for cognitive dissonance).

    Fred,

    After a while, all of the birther’s fallacious reasoning seems the same…

    • bob

      It would appear as if Farrar hasn’t even read the CRS report: Jay’s letter is discussed in the summary, and on pages 6, 17-20.

      • Slartibartfast

        Oops!

        Mr. Farrar,

        What do you think an error like this does to your credibility? I think it does nothing at all as you had no credibility in the first place.

    • roadburner

      bob,

      david relies on corsi in this matter (hence the reason he refers to it as `propaganda´).

      i am inclined to believe that maybe he should as it would outline quite why he´s wasting his time on minor vs happersett.

      BTW, please excuse the typos in my last post folks

  • David Farrar

    I stand corrected: The vitally important “first draft” of the constitution Alexander Hamilton presented to the Convention, setting forth the standard of “a Citizen”, which is in his day was a native-born, 14th citizen, and which was subsequently thrown onto the trash heap of history when the “natural born Citizen motion was unanimously adopted by the Convention delegates, without debate is in foot note 33.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • bob

    “setting forth the standard of “a Citizen”, which is in his day was a native-born, 14th citizen”

    1. English: Do you speak it?
    2. Nothing in footnote 33 supports what you claim it says. Here’s the footnote in ite entirety:

    “The provision was not directed at foreign-born statesmen or politicians in the country at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, such as Alexander Hamilton who was born in the Caribbean, since the eligibility clause expressly “grand-fathered” in those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Hamilton, in any event, supported the idea of limiting the eligibility to be President to a current citizen, or thereafter one who is “born a Citizen of the United States.” III Farrand, at App. F, p. 629.”

    • David Farrar

      Correction: “setting forth the standard of a Citizen, which in his day was a native-born, 14th Amendment citizen.”

      ” Hamilton, in any event, supported the idea of limiting the eligibility to be President to a current citizen, or thereafter one who is “born a Citizen of the United States.”

      The “Citizen” to which Hamilton was referring to was a citizen of one of the states.

      “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

      “… hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States” is exactly what your point is…which was soundly and might I say, profoundly, thrown out at the suggestion of John Jay’s “stronger check”.

      It was this very point the Maskell”s report was designed specifically to suppress.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    The “trash heap of history” is where you found your arguments–where they had been sitting since the 14th Amendment abrogated the Dred Scott decision. The 14th Amendment didn’t change the status of any white American and you can’t show differently. Any time you spend on your lawsuit is wasted and you will be lucky to avoid sanctions when your case is dismissed as frivolous (if it even gets that far…). That’s okay, though–you can take comfort in the fact that you are helping get President Obama re-elected.

    • David Farrar

      Slate,

      “The 14th Amendment didn’t change the status of any white American and you can’t show differently.”

      You are correct. But we aren’t the ones trying to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to allow anchor-baby presidents; you are.

      If, as you say:

      “The 14th Amendment didn’t change the status of any white American and you can’t show differently.”

      , than the only way to receive American birthright Citizenship is to be born of citizen parents, subject to the jurisdiction.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • bob

    “It was this very point the Maskell”s report was designed specifically to suppress.”

    You have a queer definition of “suppress,” as the report’s discussion of Jay’s letter spans several pages.

    Again, Jay did not use the word “stronger” — he wrote “strong.” You have failed to cite anything (other than your own wish-guessing) that this change of language has the meaning you import on to it.

    (And I’m still working on how Hamilton in 1787 referenced an amendment was not ratified until 1868. Was Hamilton a time traveler?)

  • bob

    Oh, you did: You got caught spouting off about something you hadn’t even read, you continue to lie about what Jay actually wrote, and can’t cite a source that supports the words that you are trying to cram into Jay’s mouth.

  • David Farrar

    The record speaks for itself, bob.

    ex animo
    dabiidfarrar

    • roadburner

      david,

      the record does indeed speak for itself, and what it says is that barack hussein obama II is your legal president and commander in chief.

      there is no miracle hidden paragraph somewhere that will suddenly change that. all the legal and constitutional writings and precedents back it up. no credible legal or constitutional expert has come forward to say otherwise.

      doesn´t that tell you something?

      good luck with your challenge, you´re going to need it.

      mulgere hircum
      roadburner

  • bob

    The record speaks for itself

    Agreed; you got caught lying and making stuff up. Again.

  • David Farrar

    I don’t blame you two for trying to downplay this passage. Maskell, himself, stuffed it all in footnote 33, cleverly worded to disguise and obscure the fact that the present interpretation of the 14th Amendment, based on Wong is and always has been incorrect and unconstitutional, as it weakens rather than strengthens the potential for foreign influence affecting our elected Commander in chief’s decisions.

    ex animo
    davidgattat

    • bob

      On the other hand, I do blame you for deliberately lying about what Jay (and Maskell) said, and for deliberately misinterpreting actual historical events, in your futile attempt to remove the lawfully elected president based on “reasoning” that has no basis in American law.

  • roadburner

    david,

    give you a chance here.

    where exactly in legal precedent or the constitution does one find the 2 parent rule for NBC status?

    a C&P of the salient point or passage will suffice if you want

  • David Farrar

    MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
    [This is a follow up to my last report, US SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT STATES THAT OBAMA IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT. ]

    Since my last report, many people have asked why the definition in Minor v. Happersett of a “natural-born citizen” (as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens) is binding legal precedent. The answer is in the Court’s holding that Virginia Minor was a US citizen…because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. That part of the actual holding is listed in the official syallbus of the case.

    And furthermore, Minor was the first case to hold that women are equal citizens to men. To this day, that case is still cited as the first US Supreme Court decision which recognized that women were, in fact, citizens. It is still precedent for that determination. Google [ "minor v happersett" "women are citizens" ] and review the results. A multitude of articles discuss the holding of Minor – that women are US citizens.

    But most important is the case itself. The official syllabus written by the US Supreme Court states:

    “1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

    2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.” (Emphasis added.)

    That’s a direct holding of the case. Hence, it is stated at the the top of the syllabus.

    It is incorrect to state that Mrs. Minor lost the case entirely. This is not true. The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.

    But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.

    The Court also held that the Constitution did not grant anyone a right to vote. So, our country chose to amend the Constitution by the 19th Amendment and thereafter all citizens were directly granted a right to vote by the Constitution.

    But the Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. And they did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.

    Before moving on to the issue of whether citizens have the right to vote, the Supreme Court in Minor stated their holding as to the citizenship of Mrs. Minor (and therefore as to all women and men):

    “The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the state, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.” (Emphasis added.)

    The independent ground the Court used to determine that Virginia Minor was a US citizen is stated as follows:

    “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,’ …

    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “ (Emphasis added.)

    Read that passage very carefully, and you will see that the US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:

    1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class –

    2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.

    But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.

    Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not.

    It was held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen – as the syllabus states in point 2 – because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. This was the independent ground that springs forth precedent. (See Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 at 84 (1996)).

    JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

    It’s important to note that the Supreme Court in Minor did not hold that all women born in the US were citizens. Only those born to citizen parents in the US were deemed to be citizens by the Court in Minor.

    Since the Court was not required to construe the 14th Amendment – as to Mrs. Minor’s citizenship – the Court refrained from doing so. Instead, the Court construed Article 2 Section 1 as an independent ground by which the Court determined that Mrs. Minor was a natural-born citizen since she had been born in the US to parents who were citizens.

    Those outside the natural-born citizen “class” were subject to doubt regarding US citizenship. And the Court in Minor exercised judicial restraint by avoiding that issue. When Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, some of those doubts were resolved in favor of US citizenship for those persons not in the class of natural-born citizens. But that case did not open the class of natural-born citizens to include persons born in the US without citizen parents.

    With regard to this being binding precedent, the important point here is that Virginia Minor’s citizenship had to be established by the Court before it could move on to the voting issue. Establishing her citizenship was part of the holding. Had Mrs. Minor not been determined by the Supreme Court to be a US citizen, the Court would not have reached the issue of whether US citizens are granted a right to vote. The Court would have exercised the same judicial restraint it exercised in avoiding the 14th Amendment issue. On this point, the Court stated:

    “Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different states. Under this, it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist, the case must be dismissed.”

    WONG KIM ARK DID NOT EXPAND THE CLASS OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

    The Court in Wong Kim Ark did not expand the class of natural-born citizens defined in Minor. The simplest way to put it is thus:

    If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, then the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)

    That is the simplest way to accurately state the issue. Read it again:

    If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, then the Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)

    Since Wong Kim Ark didn’t fit into the class of natural-born citizens as defined by Minor, the Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant him US citizenship.

    HOLDING EQUALS PRECEDENT

    The direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent. Those pretending that the Supreme Court’s direct construction and definition (in Minor) of the natural-born citizen clause is dicta are mistaken. They need to review the first two points of the syllabus, which state:

    “1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

    2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.” (Emphasis added.)

    Check the words “if born of citizen parents” again. They are stated at the very top of the syllabus and more than once in the Opinion of the Court. This is a direct holding of the case. It is clearly precedent. For it not to be precedent, the Court could not have held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. But since that determination was part of the holding, the grounds by which they made that determination are precedent, not dicta.

    The recognition of US Supreme Court precedent excluding Obama from POTUS eligibility is a theoretical game changer. This places a permanent asterisk* upon his administration’s authority. It may lead to multiple challenges against official actions of his administration.

    If he wishes to be a true statesman to this nation, President Obama ought to directly petition the US Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment as to his eligibility rather than let the asterisk fester.

    Leo Donofrio, Esq.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • bob

      Farrar’s legal precedent is “because Donofrio says so.”

      • roadburner

        bob,

        it was exactly what i expected.

        david,

        would you now like to explain which of the 2 categories that exist for citizenship under the laws of the united states (natural born and naturalised) your president fits into?

        if neither, please enlighten us what the other category is, and where one might find the legal statute defining it and the precedent supporting it.

        another C&P will do if you like.

  • David Farrar

    bob,

    The record speaks for itself. But for those who haven’t seem to have read it: Read this passage very carefully, and you will see that the US Supreme Court clearly defined “natural-born citizen” by two independent remarks:
    1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class –
    2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • roadburner

    david,

    evasion, exactly as before.

    natural born or naturalised and that´s it.

    can you show us another category under u.s. law? it´s quite simple. your president was not naturalised, so that leaves natural born, unless there is another category. this is the crux of your arguement and you´ve yet to support it.

    i´m giving you a chance here.

  • David Farrar

    As I told Slate back up on Dec 6th, at 9:42 pm:

    Slate stated, “The 14th Amendment didn’t change the status of any white Americans”…

    You are correct. But we are not the ones trying to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to allow anchor-baby presidents; you are.

    If, as you say:

    “The 14th Amendment didn’t change the status of any white Americans”…

    Then the only way to receive American birthright Citizenship is to be born of citizen parents, subject to the jurisdiction, or, as you say: simply born within the borders not of an invading army or foreign diplomats.

    By Jove, roadburner; I think you may have just found yet another legal precedent in Minor. There are, indeed, only two types of citizen. Citizens born of citizen parents or naturalized.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • bob

      In case roadburner wasn’t being clear enough for you:

      What is the legal precedent: Not your tortured reading (or Donofrio’s) — where is the case that plainly says there are these categories of citizenship?

      • David Farrar

        In Minor; dear boy.

        There are only two classes of citizenship: natural born and naturalization. There were, of course, three classes of citizenship. But one expired.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Do you really think anyone reading this is stupid enough to believe the unsupported nonsense you post?

  • David Farrar

    Okay, slart;

    Which part, and we will take them one at a time, starting with Alexander Hamilton’s first draft of the Constitution, which proposed “a Citizen”, do you think unsupported.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Let’s start with this quote from Minor which you (and Leo) claim is precedent in defining “natural born citizen”:

    At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts

    What do you think this quote means?

    • David Farrar

      Check the words “if born of citizen parents” again. They are stated at the very top of the syllabus and more than once in the Opinion of the Court. This is a direct holding of the case. It is clearly precedent. For it not to be precedent, the Court could not have held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. But since that determination was part of the holding, the grounds by which they made that determination are precedent, not dicta.

      Leo Donofrio, Esq.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • Observer

    “If he wishes to be a true statesman to this nation, President Obama ought to directly petition the US Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment as to his eligibility rather than let the asterisk fester.

    “Leo Donofrio, Esq.”

    How unlawyerly can Leo get? The Supreme Court has no power whatsoever to issue a “declaratory judgment” on a0″petition” from a President.

    Nothing in the Constitution allows a President to petition the Court, and nothing in it authorized the Court to grant the petition. It has never happened.

    Now the Governor of the Commonwealth in Massachusetts may request an Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court (as may the General Court, as the legislature is known), but there is no such power in the U.S. Consitution.

    The U.S. Supreme couft only has original jurisdiction in cases involving Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and where a State is a party.

    It has only appellate jurisdiction in all other cases. Its power extends only to Cases and Controversies, not to abstract legal quibbles. Any case involving the President has to reach the Court on appeal, just like the case of United States v. Nixon which forced the President to surrender his tapes.

    No wonder Leo has lost all those cases.

  • bob

    Leo Donofrio, Esq.

    Name one case Donofrio has won. One.

  • roadburner

    david,

    as we have established before and everyone seems to know (well, apart from the birthers) minor was a case about voting rights, and was NOT a case which set precedent on NBC status.

    the best example illustrating this is…..

    `Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts´.

    as in – the subject was discussed, but as the case was voting rights, the judges did not feel it was necessary to delve into something that was to all intents an purposes irrelevent. the judgement therefore was on voting rights not NBC status and as a result no precedent on NBC status was established.

    just because something is discussed during a case does not mean that it is setting a precedent when the case is judged. it isn´t rocket science!

    then we have this from your post..

    `There are only two classes of citizenship: natural born and naturalization. There were, of course, three classes of citizenship. But one expired.´.

    well, maybe in your opinion there were three, and maybe for donofrio.

    even if there was, it has by your own words `expired´ – as in no longer used nor legal. if you get pulled over by the police driving your car and your driving license has expired, do you have a valid and legal license? no, it´s expired and is now just a piece of paper (or plastic) that has no legal value.

    so, that now leaves us two categories – natural born or naturalised. quite obviously your president is not a foreigner and has not had to go through the naturalisation process, and that leaves…..

    natural born citizen, by your own admission.

    the question begs to be asked, as you are aware of this, why do you continue to go against the democratic wishes of the american people and show such disrespect for the laws of the united states and it´s constitution?

  • David Farrar

    roadrunner:

    You are quite right, there is a conflict here, with three possible solutions, none of which actually follow legal precedent.

    1. a natural born citizen of one allegiance
    2. a 14th Amendment citizen of dual allegiance
    3. a naturalized citizen of dual allegiance

    1. Leo Donofrio solves this paradox by simple creating another class of citizenship at birth, a 14th Amendment citizen, who, because of dual allegiances cannot be a natural born citizen, and cannot be elected to the presidency.

    2. You solve this paradox by simply saying anyone born within the legal boundaries of the country is a natural born citizen, without reference to allegiance at birth.

    3. I solved this paradox by stating only a person born of citizen parents receives an American birthright as a natural born citizen.

    All things considered, I guess Donofrio is right; there are three classes of citizens, and that part in Minor is dicta.

    The major problem I have with your solution is that it weakens the clear constitutional intent to provide a stronger check against foreign influence affecting our leadership, than a citizen, as Hamilton and present case law have suggested, one without reference to allegiance at birth.

    I guess I do owe an apology to Mr. Donofrio.

    Thank you roadrunner.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    .

  • Observer

    David said: “The major problem I have with your solution is that it weakens the clear constitutional intent to provide a STRONGER CHECK against foreign influence affecting our leadership, than a citizen, as Hamilton and present case law have suggested, one without reference to allegiance at birth.” (emphasis added).

    But let’s read what John Jay actually wrote: “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.”

    This has been pointed out to David before, so the misquotation is now willful and intentional. But the corrections will continue until morale improves.

    The clear constitutional intent was to bar the admission of “Foreigners.”

    A child born on U.S. soil is a “citizen,” not a foreigner.

    Leo, Mario and their ilk may contend that she is not natural born, but they concede that she is what they call a “born citizen.”

    So a child born on American soil is a citizen, even if her parents may not be citizens.

    Now, where did Jay say that he wanted to bar “citizens”?

    Nowhere.

    He wanted a “strong check” against “Foreigners.”

    • David Farrar

      Observer,

      on June 18, 1787 Alexander Hamilton submitted a draft version of the US Constitution where he suggested the following qualification for President:

      “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

      To be “born a Citizen of the United States” means to be a native-born citizen, for the definition of native-born is “of a specified place by birth”. Here, “place” means the United States.

      Five weeks later, on July 25, 1787, in response to Hamilton’s suggestion, John Jay wrote the following to George Washington at the time of the Constitutional Convention:

      “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.”

      Neither Hamilton’s language (a Citizen of one of the States, or born a Citizen of the US) nor the term native-born citizen appear in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution:

      “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;…”

      Instead, what appears in the Constitution is the term natural born Citizen, which came from
      John Jay’s letter. The Founding Fathers rejected Hamilton’s suggestion and chose John Jay’s term of natural born citizen. Why? Because they wanted future Commander in chiefs to be born both of the blood and soil of the nation, and that being a native born citizen was not enough. This is the direct intent laid out before all to see of the delegates to the Constitution Convention when they replaced Hamilton’s first draft with John Jay’s “strong check and natural born Citizen” suggestion.

      It is this clear intent of the conscience of the Constitution Convention delegates of what a natural born Citizen is NOT, Maskell is trying to obscure from the members of Congress by stuffing this important area of history into footnote 33.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast

        Wow David, you really do hate your president and your Constitution, don’t you?

        You are suggesting that:

        “native born” = “born a citizen”

        while “natural born” is something different. This is just plain wrong. The child of a foreign diplomat born in the US (not in the embassy) would be a native born non-citizen and the child of a US diplomat born in a foreign country would be born a citizen but not native born. In fact, it is the case that:

        “natural born” = “born a citizen”

        Just accept the truth and all of your cognitive dissonance can go away…

  • bob

    To summarize: Farrar’s legal precedent is the tortured readings of Donofrio, who has never won a case.

  • Observer

    David quoted Leo:

    Check the words ‘if born of citizen parents. again. They are stated at the very top of the syllabus…”

    Sorry, David, sorry, Leo. The syllabus or headnote is never the work of the U.S Supreme Court, and does not state the decision of the Court. The Supreme Court for years has repeated a warning a the top of every opinion it issues:

    “…the headnote is not the work of the court, nor does it state its decision, though a different rule, it is true, is prescribed by statute in some states. It is simply the work of the reporter, gives his understanding of the decision, and is prepared for the convenience of the profession in the examination of the reports.” United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 (1906).

    So just stop relying on the syllabus, already, and go directly to the opinion.

    Please note that Minor HELD THAT WOMEN CANNOT VOTE. It applied to all women citizens, whether natural born or naturalized. It was not necessary for the decision to establish a definition of “natural born” because it was not necessary determine if anyone was natural born or naturalized. Once the Court found that the party was a citizen, as stipulated, there was no NEED to determine if she was natural born or naturalized, because the answer was the same in either instance.

    The statement in Minor may have reflected the personal opinion of the Justice, but it was not a holding of the Court.

    This is why I expect that the cause in Alabama will be lost. The Minor case does not define natural born citizen, does not say that “only” children citizens are natural born, and did not hold that “only” children are natural born. It expressly declined to rule on other children.

    • David Farrar

      So are you saying that Syllabus # 2:

      “In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.”

      in the Minor case is incorrect?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

    • Observer

      “…the headnote is not the work of the court, nor does it state its decision, though a different rule, it is true, is prescribed by statute in some states. It is simply the work of the reporter, gives his understanding of the decision, and is prepared for the convenience of the profession in the examination of the reports.”

      It is irrelevant whether it correct or incorrect, because it is nothing more than an unofficial summary of the decision.

      It is a secondary source.

      It is not the law.

      It reflects only the opinion of the editor of the decision, nothing more.

      Do not try to cite or quote it in a case, because opposing counsel will eviscerate.

      Go to the decision itself, and use that.

      David’s reliance on the headnote is like a scholar relying on the Reader’s Digest Condensed Book version of a novel rather than on the novel itself. It would get a scholar laughed out of school.

      Don’t make us repeat the law of headnotes a third time.

  • Slartibartfast

    bob,

    I really don’t understand how a person can tolerate as much cognitive dissonance as Mr. Farrar does–or the Paraclete, for that matter…

    • bob

      Politicians, judges, and professors of various political persuasions all say that birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.

      But rather than accept this obvious fact, they to prefer to live in a world where George Soros has a dumptruck of international bankster’s money that he uses to buy “propaganda” to keep President Obama in the White House.

      • bob

        Farrar wrote:

        Five weeks later, on July 25, 1787, in response to Hamilton’s suggestion, John Jay wrote the following to George Washington at the time of the Constitutional Convention

        There you go again with the lies.

        Jay didn’t write in response to Hamilton’s suggestion. Jay just wrote to Washington.

        Jay wasn’t at the Constitution Convention. The Convention’s proceedings were secret.

        To claim Jay was commenting on Hamilton’s language is exactly the type of historical rewriting to be expected of birthers.

  • Observer

    David wrote: “The Founding Fathers rejected Hamilton’s suggestion and chose John Jay’s term of natural born citizen. Why? Because they wanted future Commander in chiefs to be born both of the blood and soil of the nation, and that being a native born citizen was not enough.”

    First of all, the founders ACCEPTED the concepts in Hamilton’s citizenship proposal, without any change in the fundamental requirements. A, the final draft rendered all current citizens eligible for the Presidency, just as Hamilton suggested. B, the phrase “natural born” covered all who would be born a citizen, just as Hamilton suggested.

    Hamilton, as author of the New York plan, had a profound impact on the drafting Constitution, and a profound impact on its ratification as author of key entries in the Federalist Papers.

    I will take Hamilton’s interpretation over David’s any day.

    Just where did Jay say “blood” or “born of blood and soil of the nation”?

    Nowhere.

    Let’s try it again. He wanted a strong check against admission of foreigners. Who are foreigners? They are citizens of foreign country.

    They are not native born American citizens. Once again, a native born American citizen is not now, and has not ever been, a foreigner. It was foreigners who Jay objected to.

    What did Jay mean by the words “natural born.” Well, it was a term from the common law, like bill of attainder and habeas corpus. What did it mean? Well, Blackstone, the universally accepted authority in the colonies, said it meant to be born within the allegiance and jurisdiction of the sovereign, even if born to alien parents. It never meant born of blood and soil within the King’s realm (whatever David means by those words, which are NOT found in the Constitution. Under the common law, parentage and descent was relied on by statute only for those born abroad.

    So there is the reason why the Alabama ballot challenge is a lost cause.

    I have read the pre trial order at the link. The case is going to be lost, and lost big. Come on back and take a bow after you lose.

    • bob

      Farrar’s ballot challenge is in Georgia. Hendershot filed the Alabama challenge.

      And both, of couse, are lost causes.

    • David Farrar

      But I am from Georgia, not Alabama. As for your interpretation of Hamilton’s meaning of a Citizen of the States, and Jay’s “natural born” meaning, you are certainly as welcome to your delusions as I am to mine.

      I am quite sure Blackstone’s definition of a natural born subject meant born within the allegiance and jurisdiction of the sovereign. But let’s all remember the words of George Mason:“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

      We are a nation of sovereign Citizens, not subjects to a sovereign. We do not automatically receive birthright citizenship simply by being born in allegiance and jurisdiction of a sovereign. Our allegiance, as sovereign Citizens, isn’t to a sovereign, a common wealth, or even to a country, but to a set of political ideals written down on a piece of paper. Unless you or your forebears at one point swore allegiance to the Constitution and agreed to live by its ideals, you simply can’t be a natural born American citizen.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • roadburner

    david,

    you wrote with emphasis…

    “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

    and yet you and the others in the birther movement rely on de vattel´s definition of NBC which was the law in his native switzerland.

    would you cite sharia law if it helped the cause?

    i´m sorry, but this part is pure idealist nonsense….

    `Unless you or your forebears at one point swore allegiance to the Constitution and agreed to live by its ideals, you simply can’t be a natural born American citizen.´

    there is no place in the constitution that states this and backs it up. it is simply your opinion.

    shame really, as we were starting to make some progress….

  • bob

    Farrar’s amended PTO, to be filed by his excellent attorney, Taitz:

    xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Draft-of-pretrial-order-in-GA3.pdf

    …how does it feel to be totally used?

  • Observer

    Correction, Reviewing the amended PTO, it is very likely that David Farrar will lose his case in Georgia. It will be another in the long line of cases lost by Orly Taitz, maintaining her perfect record of futility.

    The quotation from Mason was wrenched out of its context.

    The Constitution uses common law terms repeatedly, so the courts have always referred to the common law for the meaning of those terms. “The English common-law rule recognized no exception in the instance of birth during the mere temporary or accidental sojourn of the parents. As allegiance sprang from the place of birth regardless of parentage, and supervened at the moment of birth, the inquiry whether the parents were permanently or only temporarily within the realm was wholly immaterial.” 169 U.S. at 718

    Now we see that his case arises out of the “sovereign citizen” notion. David says “Unless you or your forebears at one point swore allegiance to the Constitution and agreed to live by its ideals, you simply can’t be a natural born American citizen.”

    David may fervently believe them, but the insurmountable problem is that those words are not found anywhere in the United States Constitution. This is what the Constitution says:

    “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.”

    There are only two kinds of citizens. The citizens born in the United States are natural born citizens eligible for the Presidency, while naturalized citizens are not. Anyone who does not like it is free to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

    The courts are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the singular ideas of the sovereign citizens.

  • roadburner

    david,

    YOU´RE USING ORLY!!!?

    jesus christ in a sidecar! if you like watching train wrecks, you don´t have to sit in the drivers seat to appreciate the destruction.

    if i was selecting a lawyer for something on this subject, i sure as hell wouldn´t use someone whith a 100% rate of fail like orly

    PLEASE tell us you´re not paying her! you´ve got to be smarter than that.

  • David Farrar

    Who are you citing here; Wong?

    169 U.S. at 718

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Observer

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 718 (1898).

  • David Farrar

    In this country you cannot be subject to the jurisdiction until you raise your hand as a “sovereign” and agree to give up some of your sovereignty, and agree to live by a set of political ideals commonly held by other sovereigns, and become a “sovereign Citizen” among other sovereign Citizens. All of which, have pledged their allegiance to preserve, protect and defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, those enumerated ideals.

    Please note: Citizenship under these terms isn’t a right, but a privilege. As subjects under English common law, such was not the case.

    I would like to expound on this point further, but my case is calling me. But I will be back, God willing.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • realist

    David: It’s certainly true your course is set, but if “all is well” is to be interpreted that GA will prevent Obama from being on the ballot, then all is certainly not well.

    Initially your challenge had a 50/50 chance of actually being given some serious consideration, and at least had a chance, based on the expected denial to move through the courts and perhaps get the decision birthers claim to want but will not like if it ever happens, but at least you might have received that decision. Now that Orly has “Orly’d” it up and added petitioners, put all her “exhibits” and affidavits of “experts” in play that chance has pretty much all but disappeared.

    You may believe Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided but it is the law of the land regardless. There is no case which states two citizen parents are required to have a child be natural born. It simply does not exist. You and other birthers seem to believe that because someone HAS 2 parents who are citizens and were president that it is REQUIRED it be so. That also is a falsehood.

    Having read most of the thread, I believe you are sincere in your beliefs, misguided as they are either on your own tortured reading of history and the Constitution and/or spurred on by the likes of Apuzzo and/or Donofrio or others, but they are still misguided… and in error. Though I respect your right to hold whatever beliefs you wish, this birther effort to unseat a legally-elected president, who i without doubt eligible to the office, based on lies, obfuscation, rumor and misinformation strikes me as as Un-American and Un-patriotic as anyone could ever be.

    Can’t wait for the hearing, if there is one.

  • Observer

    That is your opinion under the “sovereign citizen” cult, but it is not the law under the Constitution of the United States.

    The law is that all who are born within the United States, other than those who are exempt from its jurisdiction as diplomats or hostile occupying military, are born subject to its jurisdiction. They are subject to its power , both its criminal jurisdiction and its civil jurisdiction. They are protected by its power, and owe it allegiance in return for the protection.

    All who are born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens.

    Buckle up, that is the law.

    The sovereign citizen cultists are as misguided legally as the birthers.

  • Slartibartfast

    You’re bringing a case that you are going to argue on sovereign citizen grounds and Orly is your lawyer? What could possibly go wrong? (I’m thinking… everything.

  • David Farrar

    Yes, I have never disputed what the present law is. But the present law is unconstitutional and I have a Constitutional right to try and change that law.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Observer

    Please be clear that the present law is in fact constitutional.

    It is not only constitutional, but it is constitutional precisely because it was included IN the Constitution itself.

    This is what is in the Constitution:

    “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.”

    We will all be happy to look at your proposed constitutional amendment that would enact your changes.

  • David Farrar

    Are we going to get into the 14th Amendment again? It has already been agreed, the 14th didn’t change anything, at least for white citizens.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    The 14th Amendment is a part of the Constitution whether you like it or not. That it didn’t change anything for white people is a huge problem for you–in that case it could not have possibly created the third class of citizens that you desire. Any way you look at this the only way your case will end is in defeat–the only suspense is to see if your attorney will be able to add to her sanctions along the way…

  • Observer

    “Are we going to get into the 14th Amendment again? It has already been agreed, the 14th didn’t change anything, at least for white citizens.”

    Say what?

  • David Farrar

    Read my lips: “It has already been agreed, the 14th didn’t change anything, at least for white citizens.”

    I assume you have actually read this tread.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Observer,

    I agree with David on this point (I believe that I was the one that brought it up previously here)–the only thing the 14th Amendment did was to make it clear that the existing definitions of citizenship applied to the former slaves (thus obviating the Dred Scott decision). I don’t believe that any white person’s citizenship was affected by the 14th.

  • Observer

    Nope, Mr. Farrar, can move his lips all he wants while he reads, but it is still wrong. I have read the thread and the CRS Report. Mr. Farrar has been corrected a couple of times.

    His statement “the 14th didn’t change anything, at least for white citizens” is based on an unfounded assumption. He said:

    “If, as you say: “The 14th Amendment didn’t change the status of any white American and you can’t show differently,” than (sic) the only way to receive American birthright Citizenship is to be born of citizen parents, subject to the jurisdiction.” Dec. 6th, 9:42 PM

    I did not find any one who “agreed” with the part about “the only way to receive American birthright Citizenship is to be born of citizen parents,” and, in any event, this is wrong.

    American citizenship by birthright has always been obtained by birth in America under its jurisdiction, and this birthright never been subject to parental citizenship. The Lynch case, among others, held this in New York. The CRS Report establishes this. The 14th Amendment altered the term “citizen” from “white citizen” to all citizens without regard to race or color, but did not alter “natural born.”

    The 14th Amendment’s provision that all persons born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, was declaratory of the principle from the founding that all who are born in the U.S. are citizens without regard to their parents’ citizenship.

    To repeat from above, “There are only two kinds of citizens. The citizens born in the United States are natural born citizens eligible for the Presidency, while naturalized citizens are not. Anyone who does not like it is free to propose an amendment to the Constitution.”

    The following statement, by Mr. Farrar, is NOT the law: “We are a nation of sovereign Citizens, not subjects to a sovereign. We do not automatically receive birthright citizenship simply by being born in allegiance and jurisdiction of a sovereign. Our allegiance, as sovereign Citizens, isn’t to a sovereign, a common wealth, or even to a country, but to a set of political ideals written down on a piece of paper. Unless you or your forebears at one point swore allegiance to the Constitution and agreed to live by its ideals, you simply can’t be a natural born American citizen.”

    It is legally incorrect. All persons born in the U.S. under its allegiance and jurisdiction do as a matter of law receive birthright citizenship. Birthright citizens do not need to swear allegiance, nor do they need “forebears” who swore allegiance. They are citizens at birth. Birthright citizens are natural born citizens. If the sovereign citizen movement believes this is wrong, then it has the right to propose a constitutional amendment.

    Even Farrar’s own notions would not exclude Obama, since his forebears, including his mother and his two grandparents, were natural born citizens before him.

    His dual citizenship at birth was conditional, because to secure it he needed to return to Kenya and swear allegiance, and he never did. He never did. The conditional citizenship expired because the condition was never met. Obama today has NO dual citizenship whatsoever.

    Finally, regardless of whether the 14th Amendment changed the law, or was declaratory of prior existing law, IT IS NOW THE LAW.

    The natural born citizen clause excluded naturalized citizens from the Presidency. In accordance with Jay’s hint, it excluded those who used to be “Foreigners” from the Presidency, not persons born as American citizens. Person born in America cannot be naturalized. Only foreigners can be naturalized.

    The Minor case never said that ONLY the children of citizens could be natural born.

    So continue on to court with this “Sovereign citizen” idea, and we will await the results.

    • David Farrar

      Look, Observer,

      perhaps this will help: The reason why the natural born citizen clause excludes naturalized citizens from the Presidency, is because we are talking about at the time of birth, where the person born cannot swear out an allegiance to support anything past its mother’s breasts milk. Therefore, at birth, the allegiance of it father was transcribed onto the new born citizen.

      Time was if the father was a citizen, this would insure a one allegiance birthright. Since the mother was given allegiance transference as well, in 1934, only a person born of two citizens can now be under one allegiance, and thus, a natural born citizen, subject to the jurisdiction.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Observer

        In the United States, the allegiance of the child at birth is to the U.S., not to the country of either parent. He or she is subject to US jurisdiction and is a natural born citizen. No child born on US soil has ever been naturalized, nor excluded from the Presidency. The words of the 14th Amendment say jurisdiction, so that’s the law.

        Allegiance to the US is in return for protection.

        It is the law.

  • bob

    Taitz’s, excuse me — Farrar’s — amended complaint:

    xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=28856

    Taitz took her N.H. complaint and slapped Farrar’s (and a few others’) names on it.

    And somehow they think the result will be different.

  • Fred Muggs

    Did David give up or is he waiting for Lord Paraclete to engrave something new on a stone tablet under the burning bush?

  • David Farrar

    observer,

    “In the United States, the allegiance of the child at birth is to the U.S., not to the country of either parent.”

    How is this done; observer? Do you even know what American Exceptionalism is based upon?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    And, no, observer: In the United States, the allegiance of the child at birth is not to this country.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Where in the Constitution is American exceptionalism guaranteed?

    By the way, James Madison says that children born on the soil have allegiance to the United States. I think he understood the Constitution better than you do.

    • David Farrar

      But that’s the very exception. WE don’t swear our allegiance to a country, but to a set of ideals, commonly held, and written down on a parchment of paper. That, in their day, was extremely exceptional. Unheard of. The first of its kind since the Roman Republic.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • Observer

    “And, no, observer: In the United States, the allegiance of the child at birth is not to this country.”

    No, Mr. Farrar, the allegiance of every child born in the United States (except, of course, children of diplomats or hostile occupying military) is to our country.

    That is what the Supreme Court has said:

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 694 (1898):

    “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 Rep. 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.” 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 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.’
    ….
    “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

    Ok, that is direct from the Supreme Court, completed with citation, and is pretty clear. The alien has allegiance to the United States as long as he is here. He must obey our laws and refrain from treason. It is clear that this allegiance is independent of any domicile, any intent to reside, or any oath of allegiance or renunciation. His child, if born here, owes the same allegiance to the United States. In fact, his child, if born here, “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    Operation of the same princple. The principle is birth in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction.

    That is the law as it is viewed by the United States Supreme Court. That is my view of the law.

    Of course, your sovereign citizen movement, the latest incarnation of the old nativist anti-immigrant crowd, may view it differently, but their stuff is not the law.

    • David Farrar

      Aliens in amity is a temporary condition, based on reciprocity statutes, and is lost as soon as the alien leaves the country. A natural born Citizen is a person born naturally, without the need of such law or statues to grant citizenship.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Observer

        No. The child of the alien born in the United States is a citizen by virtue of his birth and by virtue of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of his birth, under the Constitution itsef..

        The United States needs no “reciprocity statutes” or “amity” to exercise full, plenary and unconditional power and jurisdiction over all who are present within its boundaries, whether permanent or temporary.

        Just some more “law” made up by the “socvereign citizens.”

  • Observer

    Was the plaintiff in the latest case not aware that Orly Taitz was FINED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS by a federal judge in the State of Georgia itself for misconduct in filing a frivolous birther lawsuit?

    And she paid that fine after swearing that she would never pay it.

    To put it cautiously, it would appear that it would have been advisable and prudent to select ANY of the thousands of duly licensed and capable lawyers admitted to the Georgia bar rather than an out-of-state attorney whose reputation for misconduct and frivolous litigation precedes her.

    Or maybe no GA attorney would touch the case with a ten foot pole.

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    All that is important is that the temporary condition prevails at the time of birth. Also, if you were right about being based on “reciprocity statutes” you would be able to cite them–I smell bullshit.

    I find it interesting that you are apparently unwilling to listen to advice regarding your lawyer. The last birther who did that (convicted felon Terry Lakin, cowardly Blue Falcon) threw away a good career and million-dollar pension by not listening to legal advice from obots–and was only spared worse by firing his birther lawyer. Are you planning on sticking with Orly all the way to the spectacular FAIL? I would really think twice about it…

    • David Farrar

      Let me say this again, a natural born Citizen is a person born naturally, without the need to rely upon reciprocal treaty agreements, or the need of the 14th Amendment.

      And, yes, standing will probably be the reason why we may fail in my present lawsuit. But appealing our case to the courts is how these disputes are supposed to be resolved, unless you suggest we occupy the streets or something.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Observer

        Propose a constitutional amendment.

      • Observer

        “Let me say this again….”

        Try saying it one more time.

        “I have said it twice:
        That alone should encourage the crew.
        Just the place for a Snark!
        I have said it thrice:
        What I tell you three times is true.”

        Lewis Carroll

      • roadburner

        david,

        you´re going into this case with the foreknowlege that it will fail, on the hopes of getting an appeal?

        this is pure orly.

        to get an appeal, there must be grounds to appeal. orly rattling on about SS numbers and the like is totally irrelevent.

        this will go exactly the same way as the last one (as it would appear the only difference is your name on the papers) and will end in failure.

        if you want a fighting chance, fire her and get someone who knows what the hell thy´re doing, because quite obviously orly doesn´t.

  • David Farrar

    Show me a US allegiance that pledges fealty to the country? Even the commission officer oath pledges allegiance to the Constitution of the United States rather than to the country itself.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    So what?

  • David Farrar

    In 1787, which other country swore its allegiance to a set of political ideals rather than to a sovereign or to the motherland or fatherland?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    roadburner;

    I have go to this court because Obama doesn’t have the honor, nor the public pride in the office of the President, itself, to ask the Supreme Court (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of legal opinion) for a declaratory judgment in resolving these doubts before the next election in 2012 himself.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Observer

      But it was explained to you above that the Supreme Court does not have authority under Article III of the Constitutio to issue such a declaratory advisory opinion.

      It is the overwhelming consensus of the American legal community that he is a natural born.

    • roadburner

      david,

      that´s the whole problem.

      your president doesn´t have to do anything concerning these challenges, as the constitution (backed up by legal precedent) says he is eligable regardless of if you consider it unconstitutional or not.
      as far as his eligability goes, even if the question is asked `is the copy of his LFBC legitimate and correct in content´ the hawaii DOH will just say `yes´, and that will be the end of it.

      and it won´t cost him a cent, exactly the same as every other failed birther case to date.

      honestly david, you need to have a re-think on strategy here, as you and the birther movement are contiually going into a gunfight armed with a banana and riding a unicycle.

      and there´s a point that the legal system will reach when they stop laughing and start getting pissed off

      • David Farrar

        Exactly my point. If it is so easy for him to “prove” he has met his Constitutional requirements, why doesn’t he just meet us in a court of competent jurisdiction and get it done; if not for his own legacy, for the common good of the nation?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • bob

        It would be so easy for George W. Bush to resolve those doubts that he masterminded 9/11, yet he refuses to do.

  • bob

    And a court of competent jurisdiction already has ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship. The issue continues to be why to birthers ignore the ruling that the desired?

  • Observer

    David, the Ankeny case was ruled on by the highest court of Indiana. The Supreme court has express authority and jurisdiction to review such cases.

    BUT THE BIRTHERS NEVER TOOK IT TO THE SUPREME COURT!

    And it was all their fault. The birthers let the time for review expire. Obama was not a party, so he could not file for review..

    The birthers do not want a full Supreme Court review on the merits, because they will lose, 9 to zip.

    So the birthers were met in a court of competent jurisdiction, and took a knee.

  • David Farrar

    Please cite your case and I will begin to look into your claim.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Observer

    Everyone here, but especially Farrar, ought to read THIS article:

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/georgia-state-challenges-zeb/

    • David Farrar

      What you see in this case is how the left is destroying our American birthright right before our eyes. Is it too much to ask that our President, as our Commander in chief of all our armed forces, be of one allegiance at birth to preserve, protect and defend the United States constitution?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    But that’s just it, bob. The Supreme Court hasn’t yet told us what is an A1S2C5 natural born Citizen.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Fred,

    That is a 14th Amendment citizen. If the Wong Court saw Wong as an A2S1C5 natural born Citizen, it would never have needed to use the 14th Amendment to establish Wong citizenship. It would have simply taken judicial notice that Wong was a natural born Citizen and be done with the matter. But the Wong Court didn’t see Wong as a natural born Citizen, so it needed to use the 14 Amendment to establish his citizenship.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Fred Muggs

      Funny but my high school civics book never mentioned this category called “14th Amendment Citizen”. It said there are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Could you send me a link to your civics book in Google Scholar or something where it has this category no one ever heard about before you Birthers made it up?

  • David Farrar

    Fred;

    The Wong court plainly saw Wong Kim Ark as a citizen, but not an A2S1C5 natural born Citizen. If it had, and ignored the legal precedent set in the Minor decision, which it did not, it simply would have declared Wong a natural born Citizen without having to resort to the 14th Amendment, as in the Minor case.

    It could declare, as Minor did, that Wong Kim Art was a much as a citizen before the 14th Amendment as afterwards. But it didn’t do this. Instead it knew whatever Wong Kim Art was, he wasn’t a citizen before the 14th Amendment. He was, in fact, a first sentence 14th Amendment citizen, which is what the Wong Court declared him to be…a citizen by statute, by law, by an amendment, not a natural born.Citizen

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Observer

    Jones to God: “Please, make me win the lottery.”

    God to Jones: “Meet me halfway. Buy a ticket.”

    Birther to Supreme Court: “But that’s just it, bob. The Supreme Court hasn’t yet told us what is an A1S2C5 natural born Citizen.”

    Court to birthers: “Meet us halfway. File an appeal.”

    Ankeny.

  • bob

    Hint to Farrar: SCOTUS isn’t going to tell us the definition of a natural-born citizen. Because other judges, professors, and experts all understand that birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.

    Ankeny was decided by a court of competent jurisdiction (just like you requested). No judge, professor, or expert has said the court got it wrong, and many have said it got it right.

  • Observer

    Also, bob, the birthers would disagree even if the Supreme Court ruled against them 9 to zero, and did hold that a person born to two alien parents in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a natural born citizen and may serve as President or Vice President.

    . I can hear them baying that the Court destroyed the Constitution!

    • Fred Muggs

      Bingo. I wonder when the “14th amendment citizen” crowd will ever figure out that the court in WKA was clarifying exactly who was included in the natural born citizen group and not inventing a brand new category?

      • David Farrar

        But Fred,

        If the WKA Court saw Wong Kim Ark as a natural born citizen, it could not have reached the 14th Amendment to establish his citizenship. As Minor pointed out, a natural born Citizen was as much a citizen BEFORE the 14th Amendment as he was after the 14th. passage.

        Because the Wong court did not recognize Wong Kim Art as a natural born Citizen, it HAD to use the 14th Amendment to establish Mr. Wong’s US citizenship.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • bob

        Suffice it to say you are reading Wong Kim Ark incorrectly, and no legal scholar reads it the way you do.

        Why you think you know more than those who have actually studied the law and make their living at it is one of life’s little mysteries.

  • roadburner

    david,

    why do you insist in rattling on about minor setting NBC precedent when it quite clearly states that in this case it was not needing to be addressed.

    if they didn´t feel it needed to be addressed and stated so, how the blue blazes can it be a precedent set when they quite obviously in the wording made no decision on NBC status? it was voting rights fercrissakes!

    is it that hard a concept to grasp?

  • David Farrar

    roadrunner,

    Because I thought the “thing” that needed not to be addressed was the doubts as to the citizenship of persons born within the borders of this country but of alien, or dual citizenship, parents.

    Am I wrong in this regard?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • roadburner

      david,

      you´re nearly there!

      minor didn´t need to address the citizen issue because the case was on voting rights, and as a result no precedent was set on citizenship. they said there were doubts, but didn´t need to address them in this case – now we´ve finally established that.

      the citizenship precedent was set by WKA, and later used successfully without challenge in arkeny.

      so the legal system seems quite happy with the definition and precedent they have had for the last 100+ years.

      the birther movement accuse your current president of running roughshod over the constitution, but funnily enough, it is them that wish to change the constitution for no better reason than they don´t like the current occupant of the white house.

      and that isn´t a good enough reason.

      • bob

        The birthers don’t even comprehend that the doctrine of standing, which has been the basis of most of these dismissals, is firmly rooted in the Constitution. Yet they whine when judges apply the Constitution and dismiss these cases for lack of standing.

      • David Farrar

        No roadrunner,

        Minor did absolutely need to establish Virginia Minor’s citizenship. Didn’t you read the second syllabus to the Minor case?

        Mrs. Minor’s used the 14th Amendment to establish her citizenship. The Minor Court, after taking due judicial notice of the fact that said Minor was born within the jurisdiction of two US citizen-parents, she was as much a citizen before the 14th Amendment as she was after the 14th Amendment. She was a native, or natural-born Citizen already, without the need to resort to the 14th Amendment to establish her citizenship, upon which she falsely believed her voting rights lay upon

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    The court said that citizenship didn’t entitle a person to vote–that being the case (pun intended ;-)), it was unnecessary for the court to determine who were and were not citizens. Hence what they did say on the topic is dicta (not to mention that it does not mean what you think it means).

    I anxiously await your spectacular failure in court…

    • bob

      Minor “resorted” to the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment in her argument that it entitled her to vote. She did not “resort” to the 14th Amendment to “establish” her citizenship, as her citizenship was never in dispute.

  • David Farrar

    Starbust;

    Of course your opinion isn’t true. As I have often implored those who are not conversant with this case to READ THE SIX Syllabuses of the Minor Court’s decision. They will give you the order and reason why the court made its decision. We don’t have to guess.

    Let’s take the first three, that will, I think, cover your point:

    1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

    2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.”

    3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.

    So you see, Starbust: The Minor Court, did, indeed, have to establish the fact that she was a US citizen BEFORE it could possibly address the fact that voting rights did not rely upon her citizenship.

    But as the 2nd syllabus clearly points out: “because she was a US Citizen, she may be entitled to vote, depending on the privileges and immunities afforded her by her state constitution, and not the US Constitution.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • David Farrar

      I must correct my last paragraph. I meant to say: “But as the 3rd syllabus clearly points out: “because she was a US Citizen, she may be entitled to vote, depending on the privileges and immunities afforded her by her state constitution, and not the US Constitution.”

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • bob

    “The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.”

    One particular reader unfortunately can’t even properly read the syllabus, and thinks a voting-rights case in which citizenship was not even in dispute somehow makes President Obama ineligible for the office he currently holds.

  • David Farrar

    Bob,

    The Minor decision was the first US Supreme Court that articulated what a natural born citizen was in legal terms: If you were born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, you were always considered (without doubt) to be a citizen of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since. It did so for a stated purpose, which makes it precedent instead of dicta.

    And bob, it’s not just me who believes this, but all of the past presidents have also believed this, with the exception of Arthur and Obama.

    ex animo
    davidfsarrar

  • bob

    And nothing in Minor indicates the restrictive definition of natural-born citizenship that birthers see when they squint real hard.

    And please: You don’t speak for anyone except yourself; certainly not any past presidents.

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    You can pretend all you want here, but in court the only thing the arguments you are making will win you are sanctions. All of the people posting here are well aware that ultimately your case will unsuccessful, we’re just curious as to how big a train wreck it will be. Based on your comments here and your lawyer, I’m expecting something truly spectacular…

    I’ve already mentioned that VP Agnew doesn’t fit your definition yet was considered natural born by everyone and I would also note that no one raised President Arthurs’ father’s citizenship as disqualifying back in the day–his opponents claimed that he was born outside the US, which would have been disqualifying, had it been true. I don’t know what you are trying to prove by coming here and constantly repeating long-debunked lies, but I hope that, when your case ends in abject failure, you don’t regret all of the time and effort you wasted too badly. Just remember after this unfolds that you were told that you were going to fail and fail badly. Is your confirmation bias good enough to spin whatever epic failure occurs into a fantasy of success or do you so lack critical thinking skills that you truly believe yourself correct?

  • bob

    Here’s what REAL judges on a REAL court had to say about this EXACT claim when it was raised in a REAL case regarding President Obama’s eligibility:

    “Thus, the Court [in Minor] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”

    Ankeny, at p. 13.

    • David Farrar

      bob,

      Ankeny isn’t a Supreme Court case. The only issue the Minor Court left open was whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents was a “citizen”.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Any case which seeks to show that President Obama is not a natural born citizen (like yours) will have to deal with the opposing counsel citing the precedent made by the Ankeny ruling (if it gets that far). When that happens, the judge is going to agree with the ruling and your case will end. No judge is going to have patience for your illogical interpretation of Minor–no one with a basic understanding of the English language thinks that it means what you (and Leo) think it does.

    Do you really think a judge will accept “it isn’t a SCOTUS case” when they ask you what is wrong with the precedent set by Ankeny? You are so far from having a meritorious case that it is laughable. I do have to thank you , though–your efforts are helping to re-elect President Obama.

  • David Farrar

    Any child born in this country of alien parents cannot be a natural born citizen. It’s just that simple. A natural-born Citizen owes only one allegiance since birth to preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    According to all credible authorities on the Constitution and the law, you are wrong. It’s just that simple.

  • Observer

    “Any child born in this country of alien parents cannot be a natural born citizen. It’s just that simple. A natural-born Citizen owes only one allegiance since birth to preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution.”

    That statement is simply wrong.

    A child born to alien parents in this country is a natural born citizen. That child owes only one “allegiance,” to the United States.

    That child owes no allegiance to the country or countries of its alien parents.

    The child may be able to claim citienship in one of the coutries of its parents, if it so chooses, and may choose to swear allegiance to one of those countries. But until and unless the child does so, it has owed sole allegiance to the Unted States.

    David Farrar is hopelessly confused about the concepts of jurisdiction, citizenship and allegiance. As a result, he is wrong about natural born citizenship.

    But don’t take my word about it. Let’s all sit back and wait for the complete and total failure of his lawsuit.

    • David Farrar

      Observer,

      “The child may be able to claim citienship in one of the coutries of its parents, if it so chooses, and may choose to swear allegiance to one of those countries. But until and unless the child does so, it has owed sole allegiance to the Unted States.”

      Here’s the problem, at birth, as you rightly point out, the child cannot swear out allegiance to anyone. From where does this allegiance come from then, if not from its parents?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • Observer

    David Farrar wrote: “Ankeny isn’t a Supreme Court case.”

    We are not letting him get away with this. The only reason that Ankeny was not a Supreme Court case was because THE BIRTHERS DID NOT APPEAL IT.

    This is the ultimate in gall, trying to disregard a case because it is not a Supreme Court case, after keeping it out of the Supreme Court by failure to appeal.

    The birthers probably failed to appeal because they knew they would lose. That would have sunk their legal arguments for 2012. They wanted to keep their crank constitutionall argument alive.

    Anyway, we will all be waiting for David Farrar’s appeal to the Supreme Court after his case fails in Georgia.

  • Observer

    It has been explained to David Farrar, repeatedly, that the syllabus of a US Supreme Court case is not a part of the decision.

    Is he even reading these posts?

  • Observer

    “Here’s the problem, at birth, as you rightly point out, the child cannot swear out allegiance to anyone. From where does this allegiance come from then, if not from its parents?”

    This, too, has been explained over and over. The child’s allegiance is to the United States, under whose jurisdiction and protection he or she is born. The allegiance to the United States is imputed to the child in return for that protection.

    The doctrine is drawn from the common law, when the allegiance of every child born within the King’s dominions was to the King, in return for the King’s protection..

    So that is where the allegiance comes from.

    I am just stating the law. Farrar can believe anything he wants, but it is not the law, as he will find to his chagrin in his lawsuit.

    The only exceptions, of longstanding historic authority, were for children of diplomats, who were immune from the sovereign’s power, and for children of hostile occupying military forces, who were beyond the power of the sovereign. Children born to British ambassadors are not citizens, nor were children who might have been born to the British forces who occupied the US in the War of 1812.l

    • David Farrar

      Observer,

      We are not subjects, owing allegiance to a sovereign king. Nobody “owes” an allegiance. An allegiance can only be given by a person who fully understands what that allegiance entails. At birth allegiance comes from the parents, as is their right. In times past, the allegiance of the father was given in place of the infant’s. Under present law, since allegiance can follow either the mother or the father, both must be US citizens in order to share one allegiance to our US Constitution at birth of all their issues.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • Observer

    The allegiance of the child is explained by the Court in Wong Kim Ark.

  • bob

    Here’s what is also very instructive about Ankeny:
    * REAL judges
    * REAL court
    * REAL case

    Birthers demanded their day in court, and got it. And birthers didn’t like the result, so predictably they ignore it.

  • Fred Muggs

    Guess what case the Ninth Circuit referenced in their dismissal of Barnett v Obama case concerning the plaintiffs’ claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen?

    Hint: It was not Minor v Happersett.

  • Observer

    We do not visit the sins of the fathers on their children in this country.

    We are based on the principle that all men are created equal.

    Punishment cannot work corruption of blood.
    Titles of nobility are barred.

    Every child born here is born equal and born a citizen, equal to all others.

    Take your hereditary cavalier superior sovereign noble class somewhere else. We fought a civil war against the cavalier class.

  • bob

    I wonder if Farrar has conferred with his attorney about Minor:

    “I am concerned, that law suits based only on Minor v Happersett do not have enough strength and will be dismissed, as Minor says, that one born in the country to citizen parents is a Natural born citizen, however it says that some courts included other groups as well. There are doubts about other groups. If any judge decides to include children born in the US to one citizen parent in this group, than he will automatically dismiss all the cases brought on behalf of Liberty legal foundation, as Minor v Happersett is the only basis for their law suit.”

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29493

  • Fred Muggs

    It is funny how Orly can become almost intelligible when someone is trying to horn in on her donation base.

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Leo, being the incompetent lawyer that he is, missed a couple of important nuances. First, Vice President Agnew was unquestionably a natural born Greek citizen (as a child of a Greek citizen the Greek government considered him a citizen and does not allow its citizenship to be renounced). Why do you think that Vice President Agnew’s dual allegiance wasn’t a problem but President Obama’s much more tenuous dual allegiance is? By failing to answer this question you (and Leo) demonstrate your hypocrisy. Also, Leo has shown that there is some doubt as to Mr. Agnew’s citizenship at the time of his son’s birth (there is evidence on both sides)–if his status at VP Agnew’s birth was important, then why was it not raised at the time? I’d point this out on his website, but he’s too much of a coward to allow anyone else’s comments through moderation…

  • David Farrar

    Slartibart,

    I think we are talking about Spiro Agnew’s father being naturalized a US citizen shortly before his birth according to US Immigration law, not Greek law.

    Vice President Spiro Agnew was born in Baltimore, Maryland, of two US citizens, so he would not have had a dual allegiance at birth, as Obama does. For this and other laps in your logic, I shouldn’t wonder why Leo hasn’t responded to you.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • bob

    Vice President Spiro Agnew was born in Baltimore, Maryland, of two US citizens, so he would not have had a dual allegiance at birth

    Try actually reading what Slartibartfast actually wrote:

    “as a child of a Greek citizen the Greek government considered him a citizen and does not allow its citizenship to be renounced

    Vice President Spiro’s parents couldn’t renounce their Greek citizenship; he therefore was born with dual allegiances.

    Yet no one thought this was a concern.

  • David Farrar

    It doesn’t matter what the Greek law states…unless we have a reciprocal treaty agreement. VP Agnew was not born with a dual allegiance if his father was a naturalized US citizen by US law before Spiro was born.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • bob

    It doesn’t matter what the Greek law states

    According to (your reading of) Vattel, the laws of other nations do matter.

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    You clearly have no understanding of the law (which is par for the course for a birther). It doesn’t matter what Greek law states (or what British law states) because the US doesn’t relinquish is sovereignty to every other foreign nation on the planet. I don’t think there is another lawyer on the planet besides Orly who is stupid enough to make the arguments you’ve made here in court.

    When your case turns out to be a complete failure and a cause for ridicule and the judge is considering sanctions against your lawyer, just remember that we told you so. I hope that some day you come to your senses and stop being an irrational fool.

  • David Farrar

    So what independent corroborating facts can you cite that proves Obama has met his presidential qualifications?

    Take the information given on his two birth certificates: what independent facts do you have that would substantiate the information on Obama two birth certificates?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Both birth certificates are prima facie evidence of birth in Hawai’i (and hence natural born citizenship). They conclusively establish President Obama’s citizenship in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. As there is absolutely no credible evidence to the contrary, it’s an open and shut case–President Obama is eligible and birthers are incompetent.

  • Fred Muggs

    Not to be flippant but there is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:President_Obama_Swearing-In_Ceremony.jpg

    That trumps everything else. He qualified in all 50 states and D. C. and won the election. Congress ratified the vote unanimously. All questions of eligibility were made moot and exercises futility at that point. The idea that you need two citizen parents is complete nonsense and has no support with any serious scholar of history and constitutional law.

    • David Farrar

      Fred,

      Check the record of all the elected presidents, starting with G. Washington and ending with Joe Biden…they all either took advantage of the grandfather clause or had two US citizen parents, with the noted exception of Arthur and Obama. The record speak for itself in this regard.

      ex animo
      davidfarar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    No US president has required the grandfather clause. Only an idiot would suggest that George Washington was not a natural born citizen of the Colony of Virginia and later became a natural born citizen of the State of Virginia and the United States. Your arguments all lead to absurdities.

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    The grandfather clause was for people like Alexander Hamilton, not for people like Washington or Jefferson. I thought every American learned this in civics class (right after learning that anyone born in the US* can grow up to be president), but I guess all of the birthers were absent that day…

    * Diplomats and enemies, yada, yada, yada…

  • David Farrar

    Actually, Jefferson did, in fact, need the grandfather clause.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    You are just wrong. Jefferson was a natural born subject of the colony of Virginia and the British crown until July 4, 1776 when he became a natural born citizen of the state of Virginia and the United States. The 14th Amendment (which didn’t make new law, it just codified existing law–at least for white people) is very clear… Why do birthers continually try to shred the Constitution?

  • David Farrar

    I don’t think so. I think his mother: Jane Randolph, was born in Shadwell Parish, Tower Hamlets, London. Whereas his father, Peter Jefferson was born in Chesterfield County, Virginia. Thomas Jefferson was one of the few who actually needed the grandfather clause, along with Andrew Jackson.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • David Farrar

      Okay, I will have to make a correction: Yes, being born of a father who was also born in Virginia, all would have been British subjects of the Crown until July 4, 1776, when they all became US Citizens, but not natural born US Citizens (They were all born British subjects); thus the need for the grandfather clause.

      Thank you for that correction.

      Although at preset, I think there was an ex post facto provision involved. If there was, it mostly certainly could only have applied to those citizens who were born in this country.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • roadburner

    david,

    you wrote `It doesn’t matter what the Greek law states´, and yet you seem to be concerned with british law as far as alleigence is concerned.

    do try to be consistant at least.

    if greek citizenship laws do not have any weight in the u.s, then neither do english citizenship laws.
    besides, as your president didn´t take british citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, his citizenship (if it was considered stronger than the u.s. laws he lived under) lapsed anyway. add to that the fact he would have been unable to renounce his u.s. citizenship before that point (as the birthers try to say during his childhood in indonesia), it pretty much looks like your president is an NBC, like it or not.

  • David Farrar

    Perhaps the the story of James McClure might give you a deeper insight into just how the authors of the Constitution saw state citizenship and US citizen around the time the adoption of the US Constitution.

    The article was written under the pseudonym, “Publius,” in the United States Gazette. Of the three people who used this paper and the pseudonym: “Publius” to write the Federalist papers, only James Madison would have been active around the time of this article appearance in the Richmond Examiner by 1811 — the others being Alexander Hamilton, who was dead at this time, and John Jay, who was retired.

    Click here to go to the article.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    If you would like to go to the article itself, please click here.

    Note: The article itself starts on the second page, first column, about half way done the page.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar.

  • David Farrar

    Starbust,

    your “December 28th, 2011 at 1:37 pm” statement that: “Both birth certificates are prima facie evidence of birth in Hawai’i (and hence natural born citizenship). They conclusively establish President Obama’s citizenship in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.” is mostly correct. The one correction comes into affect when you try to assert prima facie evidence conclusively establishes…unless evidence to the contrary is present — or it can be proven there is a material error of fact in the prima facie evidence itself.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • roadburner

    david,

    that is precisely the problem the birther movement has – there has been no credible nor authentic evidence to the contrary found nor presented..

    if there had been they would have won a case instead of being on an unbroken record of fail.

  • David Farrar

    roadrunner,

    But that is just the point: Not only is there no “official” vetting mechanism in place to assure compliance, but, as it turns out, none but Congress itself can address any questions of fact as to presidential qualifications being met.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • roadburner

    david,

    and the problem is exactly what?

    your president fills all the criteria for being president, end of story.

    if it was otherwise, the birthers would have won a case by now. they haven´t. doesn´t that give you just a hint that maybe they are wrong and that your president is legally in the job?

    this year you can do the most productive thing a birther can do, and try and vote him out.

    BTW, happy new year, and all the best.

  • David Farrar

    Give me a hint? We are talking about the presidency of the United States! There aren’t supposed to be any hints, nor questions, nor guesses. We are supposed to know, and it be “proven” he his met his Constructional challenge by a preponderance of evidence.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • David Farrar

      Other than what he, himself has produced; what other independent evidence is there that Barack Obama was born when and where HE says he was?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

    • roadburner

      david,

      i said `doesn´t that give YOU a just a hint´, as in, doesn´t it give you pause for thought that the birthers may be wrong.

      slarti covered the rest, so won´t reiterate.

      i´ll chalk that one up to your having been celebrating too hard on the 31st :D

      • David Farrar

        Again, roadrunner,

        The two birth certificates are only prima facie evidence, a starting point. Where is the independent, or corroborated evidence? 1961 wasn’t that long ago.

        What we are being asked to believe is a person can be elected US President without any clear, independently corroborated evidence he has met his Constitutional obligations, or that he was even born where and when he says he was born.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    No one is guessing–President Obama has produced not one, but two valid birth certificates, both of which have been verified by the Hawai’i Department of Health (the only agency in the world that may do so). He has also faced the same Constitutional vetting that his predecessors did–and passed with flying colors (which in this case means 69 million votes, a majority in the Electoral College, the unanimous consent of Congress*, and the Chief Justice of SCOTUS swearing him in). You are nothing but a willfully ignorant birther liar and I hope you are painfully aware of how entertaining your failure in court is going to be to all of us obots who told you exactly what will happen.

    * No objection filed by a Senator and a Representative… something last done in 2004 to President Bush–did the Republicans forget how?

  • David Farrar

    Slartbart,

    Let me say this again, and again, the only thing Hawaiian Health officials have verified is that the information contained on both of Obama’s two birth certificates is the same information they have in their file — in which there is an obvious error of fact…Barack Obama Sr was not 25 when Barack Jr., was born. He was 27.

    Since this error was in the “official” file of the Hawaiian Health Department, where did the error originate? But far more importantly, since we now know these two “official” Hawaiian Heath Department documents have errors, how do we make certain there are no other uncovered errors of fact, of which few, if any Constitutional vetting members, or the 69 million votes, or the majority in the Electoral College, or the Chief Justice of SCOTUS had any prior knowledge.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • roadburner

      david,

      so they screwed up the age of your presidents father. well, woopee, get him out the white house now!

      honestly david, big deal. does the constitution say that his father had to be a certain age?

      in nearly 4 years of trying, this is the only verifyable error made that the birther movement has found. everything else is spot on or they sure as hell would have shouted about it.

      yet again, we are going down the road of being asked to prove a negative. ` how do we make certain there are no other uncovered errors of fact´ . easy answer there as i mentioned before. if there had been, the birthers would be screaming from the rooftops.

      if i was to ask you for documentory proof that you didn´t murder 4 people last year, could you give it to me? no, and you´d consider it absurd for me to ask for it.

      now think for a moment what you are asking your president for, despite him having presented more documentary evidence and having beeen under closer scrutiny than ANY other president in u.s. history.

      put that way, seems kinda silly doesn´t it?

  • David Farrar

    roadrunner,

    Your assumption is entirely incorrect. There are no direct legal challenges to Obama qualifications, not because there aren’t any, but because by law there is nowhere to bring them. No one other than Congress, and only at a specific time does Congress have standing to act on questions of a president-elect qualifications

    What I am asking Obama for should be a no-brainer, a slam-dunk. After all, as you say, the man is qualified. It should be as easy as it was for Donald Trump to “prove” his bona fides, by producing both his original hospital records and his “official” state of New York birth certificate, all within a time span of two weeks. In fact, all of the records from Obama’s natal hospital would be independent, corroborative evidence, and could act to resolve this issue in 15 minutes in a judge’s chamber.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Donald Trump has not proven his natural born citizenship to anywhere near the level that President Obama has. Where are the state officials verifying his birth certificate?

  • bob

    And Trump’s souvenir “certificate” is not a hospital record, and would not be admitted in any court.

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Let’s look at a more personal example (and this is a hypothetical only–I don’t care where you were born): How would you prove your birthplace?

  • David Farrar

    I will take you up on that wager: Donald Trump has proven his natural born citizenship far higher than President Obama. Donald Trump has provided independent and corroborative evidence of his natural born birth, so much so, his bona fides has remained unchallenged to this day.

    If it will make you feel better; I would suggest a simply solution to this issue would be the authentication and publication of Obama’s natal hospital records, with the hope that at least on these documents there can be found some independent evidence.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    bob,

    Even Trump’s souvenir hospital “certificate” has value. It did tell you what hospital he was born in and at what time. Someone who wanted to hunt down his actual records, would know where they were and how to get a certified copy.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • roadburner

      david,

      the only value trumps footie BC has is novelty value, nothing more.

      the state where your president was born has certified not once, but twice that he was born there, signed, sealed, and certified.

      what more possibly could you ask of a u.s. citizen to prove their birthplace and NBC status?

      and to agree with slarti i´ll ask you the same question – how would YOU prove you were a u.s. citizen?

  • Slartibartfast

    Given images of two birth certificates which have been certified by the issuing agency as valid online and official statements and sworn testimony by Hawai’i officials, it seems likely that any American could prove President Obama to be a natural born citizen in any court. Even taking that footie BC of Trump’s at face value, he wouldn’t even have evidence of the same.

    You avoided the question: How would you prove that you are a natural born citizen? You don’t have to do it (prove your US birth), but if you keep avoiding the question of how you would do it, you will be declaring yourself to be nothing but a hypocrite trying to attack President Obama with lies (and using one of the most ineffectual and counterproductive means possible).

  • David Farrar

    You’re repeating yourself…a sign of an inferior argument.

    The issue here is Obama meeting his Constitutional requirements to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States, not mine. But, as I was pointing out here, the only thing Hawaiian Health Officials can attest to is their own record, which is the prima facie evidence.

    We can take them at their word and still be left without any form of independent or corroborative evidence, depending on how much, or how little, information contained in the document can be independently verified, contrary to actually publishing his natal records from which his prima facie evidence was produced, and upon which, presumably, even more independent or corroborative evidence can be obtained.

    My further point being: if Obama two “certified” documents had any probative value, qualifying statements from the issuing agents would be, and should be, unnecessary. The documents should speak for themselves. Sadly, Obama’s two birth certificates, as discussed above, do not speak for themselves. They offer no independent or corroborative evidence to support the information contained in Obama’s two birth certificates.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • roadburner

    david,

    and you, as per normal when you find youself in a hole with no reasoned arguement, are evading the question entirely.

    how would YOU prove your own NBC status? simple question that onlr requires a simple answer.

    `My further point being: if Obama two “certified” documents had any probative value, qualifying statements from the issuing agents would be, and should be, unnecessary. The documents should speak for themselves.´

    the only reason the issuing agents have had to make any statements on a legal document accepted in any court in the u.s. on face value is because the birthers won´t STFU, read their consitituion, listen to a lawyer that knows what their talking about, and get over their boy losing the election.

    they realise that when someone is a little bit slow, you have to explain things to them several times.

  • David Farrar

    roadrunner,

    I would prove it in exactly the way I have been asking Obama to prove his: produce his natal hospital records OR any other independent fact that substantiates his state birth records.

    Guys, this isn’t supposed to be hard. It’s done every day in probate courts all over the country.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • bob

      It’s done every day in probate courts all over the country.

      A state certified birth certificate would be accepted as sufficient proof in any court.

      A souvenir “certificate” would be rejected in any court.

      Care to try again?

    • roadburner

      david,

      the LFBC provides information (signed, sealed, certified, etc) of where he was born, and in which hospital. any other medical records are irrelevent, that is unless the constitution has suddenly sprouted a eugenics clause.

      if your president went to a probate court with the copy of his LFBC issued by the hawaii DOH, they´d say `oh, o.k, thats fine with us´, and that would be the end of it.

      look david, i understand that for some strange reason you dislike the fact that barack hussein obama II was democratically elected your president and commander in chief. hell some of rthe people that voted for his ain´t particually happy with him at the moment. that being said, they will use their vote at the end of the year to try and remove him.
      you, on the other hand have spent nearly 4 years in a futile attempt to try and remove him from office, not democratically, but by hunting for non-existent loose threads, attempting to re- interpret and change the constitution (ironic really considfering the birthers are constantly accusing your president of doing just that) and by supporting a bunch of paypal grifter and 3rd rate lawyers who are purely looking to line their pockets using the politics of hatred as a financial tool.

      if your president is voted out at the end of the year, 4 years of your time will have been wasted, because you will have done nothing to influence that event. likewise if he is re-elected.

      it´ll be fun watching the birthers heads explode if that happens!

      • David Farrar

        Look, roadrunner,

        “if your president went to a probate court with the copy of his LFBC issued by the hawaii DOH, they´d say `oh, o.k, thats fine with us´.”

        And when the opposing side lays out in-convertible proof that a material issue of fact was present in their “certified” hawaiian DOH document; and moves to enter Obama’s predicatory natal hospital records into evidence; what would be your objection?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Hospitals don’t keep official records–the state government is responsible for that for precisely this reason. The best (and sufficient) proof of birth in a state is that the state says you were born there. You can’t prove (in a court) that you were born in a state without the state backing you up–at least it would be extraordinarily difficult. On the other hand, if a state said you were born there, it would be impossible to prove otherwise (without incontrovertible evidence of massive fraud).

    You insist on rejecting the best evidence which is confirmed by the only people with the authority to determine who was born in Hawai’i in favor of secondary evidence that would be inadmissible in court–that is the behavior of an idiot. I hope that the only thing going through your mind when the judge dismisses your case or finds against you (and possibly sanctions you and/or your attorney) is that we told you exactly what was going to happen. I hope someday you realize how foolish and shameful your behavior is.

  • David Farrar

    Starburst:

    Hospital officials in which Obama says he was born state they have the records for that time of period. Since there was an error in Obama’s prima facie evidence, any court at this time would now call for his original natal records.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    The error, if indeed it is such, does not invalid the BC or its status as prima facie evidence of birth in Hawai’i. You are simply a willfully ignorant fool who apparently lacks the intelligence to understand the frivolity of your own arguments. Hopefully a judge will disabuse you of that notion if you proceed in your Quixotic quest to usurp the US Constitution.

  • bob

    To obtain a Georgia driver’s license or a U.S. passport, hospital “certificates” are not acceptable. But state-issued certificates are.

    http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/dldata.aspx?con=1742926996&ty=ten

    http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_5401.html

  • David Farrar

    Slartbart,

    Allow me to congratulate you on finally arriving at my point, or, rather: my case in chief. Because, you see….a material error in fact, in ordinary times , in ordinary cases, does take away that cloak of truth prima facie evidence carries and compels the court to seek further independent facts to restore the cloak of truth.

    As I say, in ordinary times, as in the well publicized case of Donald Trump, it usually only takes the production of a hospital “ceremonial” birth certificate to completely squash any question.

    And, lastly, let me point out, at this time nobody can say with certainty, based on the preponderance of evidence, that Barack Obama has met his US Constitutional qualifications — and that, my dear friend, is where the President of the United States needs to be!

    ex animo
    davidfarrar.

  • roadburner

    david,

    you really don´t get it do you?

    any hospital records showing confidential medical information (if they still exist – we are talking 50 years ago) would not make any difference to the fact that your president was born in hawaii, and as such is an NBC
    even in the remotest possibility that a court ordered those records found and examined, if they didn´t show what you wanted, you´d scream `forgery!´ or `that full stop is in the wrong place!´.

    simply put, you´d never be satisfied unless it supported your own predjudices.

    trumps footie? worthless and only caused him to look more of a laughing stock than before. but you seem to be happy with a non-official bit of paper for him, and not 2 signed, sealed and certified certificates presented by your president.

    now exactly why is that?

    And, lastly, let me point out, at this time nobody can say with certainty, based on the preponderance of evidence, that Barack Hussein Obama II has not met his US Constitutional qualifications. over the age needed to qualify, NBC, paperwork submitted in time, elected, sworn in and doing the job.

    if that wasn´t the case, he would never have got past the first hurdle to being elected.

    • David Farrar

      roadrunner;

      You may be right. But since Obama’s two, Hawaiian DOH certified birth documents have been shown to contain errors, their probative value can now rightfully be called into question. To restore that cloak of truth, Obama’s natal hospital records must now be used to create a preponderance of the evidence.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • bob

    First of all, no errors have been shown.

    Second, there are no errors as to the dispositive issues: President Obama was born in the United States (and is over 35).

    • David Farrar

      bob,

      You can make statements all day long, but without predicates, they are worthless. Since Obama prima facie evidence has been taken away, what independent evidence do you have that would allow you predicate your statements if it is not Obama natal records?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • bob

        You can make statements all day long, but without predicates, they are worthless.

        Oh, the irony.

        Since Obama prima facie evidence has been taken away

        You may think so, but you have been spectacularly wrong about everything else.

  • bob

    Congratulations on the judge denying President Obama’s motion to dismiss your challenge.

    President Obama’s attorney will soon present a paper copy of his COLB to the judge. And your challenge will be rejected.

    • David Farrar

      Bob,

      you think so? There wasn’t one in his Response, or in his PTO that I am aware of.

      If he wants to get it in at this point, all we would require is the document’s authentication.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    You will never get a chance to authenticate the COLB or LFBC (either could be submitted to court). One of them will be submitted to the judge who will take notice of it and dismiss your case (that’s my guess, but we all know that your case ends in dismissal or defeat). The fact that you think that you’ve scored some kind of significant victory here makes your eventual FAIL even funnier. Here’s a question that you actually may be able to answer: Why does Charlie Brown keep trying the kick when Lucy is still holding the ball?

  • bob

    Yes; at the hearing President Obama will introduce a paper copy of the COLB into evidence. Which is self-authenticating under the rules of evidence.

    And on page 5 of his PTO, President Obama specifically reserved the right to use evidence following your case-in-chief.

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Neither you nor your spectacularly incompetent attorney are ever going to have an opportunity to “authenticate” President Obama’s birth certificate. The judge will do that*–and then will dismiss your case. When you end in failure, I hope you will appreciate just how much amusement you have given to obots and how you’ve helped drive a wedge between the right and independents. Thanks.

    *If that is even necessary–I believe your complaint was on the basis of your daft legal theories rather than disputing the president’s place of birth. You might find that judges frown upon switching horses in mid-stream…

  • roadburner

    david,

    `If he wants to get it in at this point, all we would require is the document’s authentication.´

    which will be a letter from the hawaii DOH saying `yes, it´s authentic´ (as due to being the issueing authority, they´re the only ones that can), and case closed.

    mulgere hircum

    • bob

      It doesn’t even require a letter. The seal and signature self-authenticate the COLB.

      • Slartibartfast

        The only suspense here is will President Obama stick with the COLB or will he whip out his long form or will he point out that Mr. Farrar didn’t dispute that he was born in Hawai’i (oopsie). I hope it will be the ruby slippers (the COLB–demonstrating that President Obama has been able to prove his eligibility from the start, just like Dorothy had the ability to go home… We all know where Orly fits into the metaphor).

  • bob

    My only question is why didn’t Farrar also challenge Romney?

    Romney has never shown his birth certificate, and, according to Farrar, was also born with multiple allegiances.

  • roadburner

    hey slarti,

    BHO plays blazing saddles?
    :D

  • roadburner

    david,

    well, your president is still in the white house.

    are you now regretting using orly?

  • David Farrar

    We have won our case. The Judge is going to declare a default judgement against Obama. In order for Obama to get his name on the Georgia ballot, he will have to actually sue the Secretary of State and win on appeal — not likely.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Slartibartfast

      The judge will not be making a judgement of any sort–he’ll be issuing a recommendation to Mr. Kemp. You might not want to get your hopes up regarding that recommendation, but even if it is in your favor it would overturned on appeal. Enjoy that feeling of victory–I doubt it will last long.

      p.s. I sent you a PM at the Fogbow…

  • bob

    How do you know the judge is going to declare a default judgment?

  • David Farrar

    I was there. I was one of the Plaintiffs in the case.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • GeorgetownJD

      Then why did the judge not make a record of it right then and there in the hearing? Like every judge does?

      BTW, you know there is not such thing as a “default judgment” in an administrative referral, right?

      • David Farrar

        I can only tell you what I heard sitting in the first row….the judge is going to enter a “default” judgement against Obama. It was later, on the Internet, I heard the judge also was going to recommend to the SoS that Obama’s name not be placed on the ballot.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast

        Let me get this straight–you were a plaintiff, but you didn’t know the relief you were seeking or what the sole job of the administrative law judge was (to submit a recommendation to the SoS). Wow, that’s pretty pathetic.

  • Slartibartfast

    Uh-oh–sounds like you may not have understood what the judge meant…

    You were aware that both the COLB and the LFBC were entered into the record by the other plaintiffs, right? Why didn’t your attorney object? I think it’s because she’s the least competent lawyer in this or any other reality, but that’s just me…

    • David Farrar

      I was aware that both the COLB and the LFBC were entered into the record by the other plaintiffs, right? What other plaintiffs?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Slartibartfast

        You are aware that other lawyers besides yours spoke at the hearing today, right? They don’t represent you, do they? They put the COLB and the LFBC on the record and your lawyer didn’t say “boo”. Do you think that was smart, legally speaking?

  • David Farrar

    Who did this?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    I was under the impression that Van Irion and Hatfield introduced images of the COLB and LFBC and stipulated to their authenticity. Did you nod off for that part?

  • David Farrar

    And just who are Van Irion and Hatfield?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    They are the two lawyers that spoke before Orly. How do you not know this? I would be very interested to hear your recollection of the proceedings today. I think it would be instructive to compare your account with the accounts of others who were present.

  • David Farrar

    IANAL – My take on the proceedings.

    1. The parties represented by Jablonski did not participate in the hearing stage of this proceeding.
    2. Respectfully, as I read the “language”, the ALJ may enter a default order against the parties represented by Jablonski.
    3. If the ALJ does enter a default order, he must still make a determination on evidence provided by all parties at all stages of the proceedings.

    Judge Malihi will make a recommendation that candidate Barack Obama’s not be placed on the PPP.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • David Farrar

    Here is a question for you all: Why did Judge Malihi set Feb 5th as the date to have all of their legal yada….yada….yada stuff in?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    I’m not a lawyer, either, but here’s my take on your take:

    1. No, but they did make sure that the SOS received a copy of the COLB (not that it was necessary since your fellow birthers made sure that it was in the record)–that fulfills their burden of proof.

    2. The judge makes a recommendation to the SoS–no more, no less. He has no authority to do anything else.

    3. Yes, and the COLB is part of that evidence (introduced by plaintiffs without objection).

    Judge Malihi may make a recommendation to take President Obama off the ballot (if he’s a whackjob who doesn’t understand the law), but SoS Kemp (who has also received the COLB) is highly unlikely to remove the President from the ballot and expose his office, his state, and his political party to the embarrassment they would suffer in court if this happened. I think that Malihi, even if he was prepared to rule for you at the beginning (with nothing on the record from the defense), will now be forced to rule for President Obama as he has recognized his birth on US soil and understands that satisfies the legal requirements for natural born citizenship.

    Seriously–I think you guys got played like a fiddle! They set things up so the judge could tell you “if you just pack up and go home, you’ve got a win”, knowing full well that the SoS could just disregard the recommendation and dispose of the issue. Instead, you want to get the evidence into the record and they agree to a quicky hearing in which you make the colossal unforced error of admitting the COLB (and the LFBC) into evidence unchallenged. Now the judge can just rule against you and be done with it–and you’ll be saddled with the record on appeal.

    Dude, you’ve been pwned.

  • David Farrar

    bob,

    The judge didn’t agree with you, and neither does the truth.

    ex animo
    davodfarrar

  • bob

    The judge didn’t agree with you, and neither does the truth

    Cite where the judge doesn’t agree with me. Ditto with “the truth.”

    And try exiting the birther echo chamber: The media isn’t exactly falling over itself to report this as the Trial of the Century.

  • David Farrar

    The record is there and it speaks for itself, bob.

    Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama’s name not be on the Georgia ballot!

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • roadburner

      david,

      judgements are made in trials, administrative hearings make reccommendations.

      when you go to vote and see your presidents name still on the ballot, we won´t say `i told you so´.

      well, maybe :D

  • bob

    Well, gee, if they talked in chambers it isn’t ON THE RECORD. So, again, if you are citing to some “record,” try being a little more specific.

    And, “counslor,” Malihi can’t enter a judgment, much less a default judgment. If you have any doubt about this, asked your learned attorney.

  • bob

    David Farrar, December 5th, 2011 at 4:14 am

    “But I will most certainly agree, if the court grants us ‘standing’ so we can get an actual decision based on the merits of the case; and the decision goes against me; I will, of course, appeal to a higher court. If the decision is not reversed, I will be forced to agree that given the facts known at the time, and under present law, Obama met his Constitutional requirements to take the oath of office of the President of the United States.”

    Will Farrar be a man, and honor his previous words?

  • David Farrar

    Of course, I will. And by the same token, I am sure after the appeal, if candidate Obama should lose, he will withdraw from the Georgia race until he can prove he has met his qualifications.

    Agreed?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • roadburner

    david,

    we told you so.
    :D

  • David Farrar

    roadburner

    Yes, you told me so. Like the judge said, we didn’t have enough probative evidence to block a sitting President from placing his name on a re-election ballot …this time.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • roadburner

    david,

    that was mean of me, sorry.

    the problem is exactly the quantity of probative evidence – there is absolutely none to prove that your president is ineligable for his post, and more than enough to prove that he is. he´s presenten more than any other president in u.s. history. any appeal will go the same way.

    i notice orly is now going on that the judge having iranian roots was the reason, and he was predjudiced against her.

    most unbecoming for a lawyer

  • David Farrar

    Yes, I don’t believe any of it. While I do believe Mario Apuzzo, Esq., lays down a very cogent reason why Sec. Kemp should overrule Judge Malihi’s decision.

    Click here.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Mario (a DUI lawyer, not a Constitutional scholar) said:

    “But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States.”

    As I told you (and is seen on the transcripts), President Obama’s birth certificate was introduced into evidence to establish his father’s citizenship. Your lawyer didn’t object to this. The judge had an obligation to find the truth given the facts and the law before the court–he did so. Don’t worry, though, your case had absolutely no merit, so even if you had a competent lawyer it wouldn’t have changed the final outcome. SoS Kemp will leave President Obama on the ballot and incompetent appeals will be filed by the lawyers involved–maybe your lawyer will even be able to earn more sanctions from the courts in Georgia… You have continually shown your lack of understanding of the process that you are a part of (while what I’ve said has, in general, turned out to be correct), why should anyone believe that you know what you are talking about now?

  • David Farrar

    Slartibartfast;

    Mario was talking about my case, there was no evidence submitted by the defendant.

    Since the other two cases didn’t involve the birth certificates, and, in fact, needed them to establish their case.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Actually, your lawyer entered multiple images of the president’s birth certificate and utterly failed to make the case that they were forgeries, but all of the evidence entered by all of the plaintiffs was in front of the court. The judge wasn’t making three different recommendations based on three different sets of facts, he was deciding the merit of three arguments that President Obama should be removed from the ballot based on all of the facts and law recognized by the court–and he decided that your arguments had no merit. Because they don’t. I don’t know why you blindly hate President Obama, but your attempts to ignore the Constitution and effect a coup against him will fail because none of your arguments can pass the laugh test.

  • David Farrar

    Multiple images of the anybody’s birth certificate can not be entered into evidence. Your predicate is wrong, as is your assertions built up around your error.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Events would seem to indicate that the judge believed that President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i was a fact in evidence. You could appeal SoS Kemp’s decision on these grounds, but even if your lawyer wasn’t incompetent and vindictive you wouldn’t have a prayer. I’m a scientist–my hypothesis is consistent with the available data, yours is not. Why should anyone believe that you are right and I (and others) are wrong?

    By the way, I saw this exchange:

    Strenuous

    February 5th, 2012
    9:50 am

    Immediately after the loss, David Farrar was gracious in defeat. And then Orly Taitz — his lawyer — filed the most vile, despicable pleading to the Secretary of State demanding everyone from Judge Malihi to officials in Hawai’i be prosecuted for ruling against her.

    I’d like t know if Mr. Farrar endorses that kind of craziness from his lawyer. Mr. Farrar seemed to be a person with honorable, if misguided, intentions. But Taitz is completely out of control and is bound and determined to get Mr. Farrar sanctioned.

    What say you, Mr. Farrar?

    David Farrar

    February 5th, 2012
    9:53 am

    Strenuous
    February 5th, 2012
    9:50 am

    Certainly not. And rest assured, I will address this issue with Sec. Kemp as soon as Monday morning.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    Good for you.

  • David Farrar

    Slartibartfast

    I did not authorize those unfounded criminal allegations found in Ms. Taritz’s motion against Judge Malihi. I consider his judgement and recommendation to be well with the judge’s discretion, and to be fair and honest.

    But I will point out, even ” a little, if any. probative value” is more than no probative evidence at all, which is the very problem we have been confronted with when it comes to Pres. Obama’s continued evasion of his responsible to “prove” he has met his constitutional obligations to take the oath of office of the presidency of the United States.

    I think Sec Kemp can see, by issuing a default order against candidate Obama UNTIL HE PRESENTS HIS OFFICIAL STATE OF HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE into a court of law, nothing has been achieved by this endeavor.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • Slartibartfast

    Mr. Farrar,

    Literally speaking (I’m a mathematician by training, by the way…), “little, if any” means “slightly greater than or equal to zero”, so we don’t know if the judge considered it equivalent to no probative evidence. I’m sure that it will become clear to you in due course that President Obama’s date and place of birth are in the record, so I wont belabor the point, but, at best (my opinion), the SoS will get a look at a certified copy of the COLB or LFBC. Would this be sufficient for you?

    I commend you for distancing yourself from your attorney’s deplorable conduct. I don’t believe that she has ever been concerned with serving your interests and I think that it shows integrity (and common sense) to dissociate yourself from the sort of bile she spews every time she looses.

  • David Farrar

    Slartibartfast,

    “Slightly greater” is greater than none. But, yes, that’s a great idea. But the process has to be fair to both sides; wouldn’t you agree? This is why Sec. Kemp assigned this case to his administrative court in the first place.

    So how do we get candidate Obama’s birth certificate into evidence, using the long established rules of discovery and evidence?

    The only way I know of at this point is to have Sec. Kemp declare a “default” and announcement that candidate Obama’s name will remain off of Georgia’s PPP ballot as long as candidate Obama, or his legal counsel, fails to submit his official, Hawaiian (paper) birth certificate.

    Fair enough?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • bob

    The only way I know of at this point is to have Sec. Kemp declare a “default” and announcement that candidate Obama’s name will remain off of Georgia’s PPP ballot as long as candidate Obama, or his legal counsel, fails to submit his official, Hawaiian (paper) birth certificate.

    Fair enough?

    1. The State of Hawaii has repeatedly said President Obama was born in Hawaii, and there is no competent contrary evidence.
    2. The Secretary of State will keep President Obama on the ballot. That decision that will be upheld in the courts should any of the plaintiffs seek review.
    3. You don’t get to make the rules.
    4. The decision lies with the Secretary of State; you are not entitled to see anything in any case.

  • David Farrar

    bob,

    Good points all. Let me see if I can address them.

    1. The decision lies with the Secretary of State. It is he who will get to see the birth certificate, if it is moved into evidence, not on a ex parte basis.

    2. I don’t get to make the rules, agreed, and neither does the defendant.

    3. If the Secretary of State keeps President Obama on the ballot, what will compel compliance on the part of the defendant? Candidate Obama has already amply demonstrated he will break the rules when he feels it necessary.

    4. Unfortunately, what somebody in Hawaii said isn’t in the record. We are simply allowing the defendant to enter his birth certificate into evidence properly before his name is placed on the Georgia ballot.

    I am not sure you realize what a tremendous opportunity for Sec.Kemp, and, by extension, the State of Georgia, to create precedent and make good state law this opportunity affords. If done correctly, and openly, and dare I say, honestly, more states will begin to play their rightful roles, their constitutional roles, in vetting presidential and the vice-presidential candidates rather than their own self-serving political parties. That’s got to be good by any measure.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    .

  • bob

    1. The decision lies with the Secretary of State. It is he who will get to see the birth certificate, if it is moved into evidence, not on a ex parte basis.

    The Secretary of State isn’t a court; there is no “moving” into evidence. If President Obama wants to show Kemp his birth certificate, he will.

    2. I don’t get to make the rules, agreed, and neither does the defendant.

    And President Obama isn’t making any rules.

    3. If the Secretary of State keeps President Obama on the ballot, what will compel compliance on the part of the defendant?

    “Compel compliance” with what? President Obama already is on the Georgia ballot.

    Candidate Obama has already amply demonstrated he will break the rules when he feels it necessary.

    Not true at all.

    4. Unfortunately, what somebody in Hawaii said isn’t in the record.

    Not true; President Obama’s long-form birth certificate is in the record.

    We are simply allowing the defendant to enter his birth certificate into evidence properly before his name is placed on the Georgia ballot.

    President Obama already is on the Georgia ballot.

    I am not sure you realize what a tremendous opportunity for Sec.Kemp, and, by extension, the State of Georgia, to create precedent and make good state law this opportunity affords.

    I live in the real world: The Secretary of State isn’t going to embarrass himself and Georgia by removing the sitting president from the ballot because of birther lies.

  • David Farrar

    bob,

    The Secretary of State will never embarrass himself, or the State of Georgia, by seeking the truth through Georgia statutes. This whole disappearing act by candidate Obama was simply designed to get candidate Obama’s birth certificate into evidence behind Plaintiff’s back and unrebutted.

    Let’s be clear, the whole nation will be watching Sec. Kemp, and Georgia to see if Sec. Kemp will treat both sides fairly and evenly? Entering candidate Obama’s birth certificate in a courtroom setting insured all sides. I am sure if the tables were turned, you would insist on nothing less.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • bob

    Maybe I was unclear:

    THE STATE OF HAWAII HAS REPEATEDLY SAID PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII, AND THERE IS NO COMPETENT CONTRARY EVIDENCE.

    The time to introduce such evidence has passed; your attorney, having no such evidence, did not even attempt to present any at the hearing.

  • David Farrar

    bob,

    It’s important in the process to understand just what Hawaiian Officials are saying. By law they can only state their records accurately reflect what is contained on candidate Obama’s birth certificate. They do not say that that information is true or correct, only that the document accurately reflects what is in their files.

    Now there are well recognized errors in both of candidate Obama’s birth certificates. Since these errors are contained in the Hawaiian Health Department records, how did they get there? It is important to understand how those errors occurred in order to assure ourselves there are no more errors that have as of yet been uncovered in order to “prove” candidate Barack Obama has met his constitutional requirements, which is my goal and, hopefully, the goal of Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar.

  • bob

    It’s important in the process to understand just what Hawaiian Officials are saying.

    I will help you: THE STATE OF HAWAII IS SAYING PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    They do not say that that information is true or correct, only that the document accurately reflects what is in their files.

    In case I was unclear: THERE IS NO COMPETENT EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS NOT BORN IN HAWAII. YOUR ATTORNEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SUCH EVIDENCE, BUT DID NOT.

    Now there are well recognized errors in both of candidate Obama’s birth certificates.

    So you won’t misunderstand: NONE THAT RELATE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLACE OF BIRTH.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45 other followers

%d bloggers like this: