Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
I named it the Bastard Protocol.
heh heh heh
A divorce decree for a bigamous marriage is as null and void as the bigamous marriage!
I don’t disagree with any of your logic, reasoning or predictions.
Thats gonna require an investigation, an international investigation. Thats a tough row to hoe.
Otherwise it is speculation.
What we are concerned with today is how this SCOTUS will view “born in the country of parents who are citizens” if considering Baby Barry, born with unitary US citizenship from his US citizen mother...and not in any way a foreigner or alien...which were the only “as opposed to” categories mentioned by the Court in Minor.
I predict that this SCOTUS would rule that Barry is NBC if he were determined to have been born a bastard to his US legally single US citizen mom, and was therefor NOT a dual citizen at birth.
Mike, I just sent you a Freepmail. Could you just let me know if you got it OK? Thanks!
“Obama’s parents were legally married and his father was a British subject when Obama was born.”
The US government and Harvard threw BHO Sr out of the US because they strongly suspected he was a bigamist sexual predator. Obama can introduce the INS records to support the bigamous nullity of his own parents marriage.
Then there are a dozen living relatives including the first wife herself, Kezia, and Mama Sarah who can remember and attest to the tribal marriage under the Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 and also to the bigamy of BHO Sr.
• See Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 paragraph #49:
49. Whoever contracts a marriage under this Act, being at the time married in accordance with native law or custom or in accordance with Mohammedan law to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
kenyalaw.org/family/statutes/...?file=The+marriage+act.pdf
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Emergency-request-for-letters-rogatory1.pdf
Did you see this yet?
That's not entirely true. Marriages to foreign citizens have always complicated things. If there's not compelling evidence of a place of birth, then it creates problems and the Supreme Court has addressed this concept several times, such as here in 2008:
We explained the conundrum in Runnett v. Shultz: One obvious rational basis for a more lenient policy towards illegitimate children of U.S. citizen mothers is that illegitimate children are more likely to be "stateless" at birth. . . . As the government notes, if the U.S. citizen mother is not a dual national, and the illegitimate child is born in a country that does not recognize citizenship by jus soli (citizenship deter mined by place of birth) alone, the child can acquire no citizenship other than his mother's at birth.
As the founders would have viewed this issue, especially with the Treaty of 1783, the children of U.S. citizen women who married British subjects, they either became British or would have simply lost their U.S. citizenship. There's no natural principle to preserve U.S. citizenship as a default for an illegitimate child and/or an unmarried or abandoned mother. Thus, Obama can argue he's a bastard, but it's only going to make him a statutory citizen under 20th century law, but not a natural-born citizen.
I can't take that bet because while you were away this evening doing your chemistry homework, Barry's 2012 team put up a new Facebook page declaring Barry “I was as born in Hawaii to a single mother”!!!
Sounds like a declaration that “I am a bastard” to me!
How's that for timing!
“Strongly suspected” is NOT legal proof of a pre-existing marriage ... and we can’t presume that the wedding was NOT ended prior to Barak Sr.’s marriage to SAD. Is there a legal precedent for nullifying a three-year marriage from nearly 50 years ago. just based on a few suspicions??
Are we sure that Facebook thing was put up by Obama’s people? It’s got the logo but couldn’t anybody C&P that in? How do we know who it’s put out by?
Definitely stuff that makes you go hmmmm though...
I hope she really did get that to Michael Jablonski. The e-mail address she had for him spelled the name Jablonsi (no k). Little stuff like that can make a big difference so she might want to correct that and make sure this document really gets to Jablonski.
That is not my understanding. IIRC the recognized international default under “natural law” at the time of the founding was that the bastard children did get the “unitary citizenship” of their mothers so both blood and soil would be US and thus potentially SCOTUS could rule such children natural born citizens. I remember reading that but don't have it handy.
Runnett v. Shultz concerns children born outside the US.
Under the 14A as interpreted by WKA all babies born on US soil under US jurisdiction are at least US citizens regardless of whether they are legitimate, so they are not stateless.
There are letters in the Stanford U. archive from BHO Sr. to Tom Mboya affirming his marriage to “his wife” in Kenya and asking Mboya to help support her...dated after he was supposedly married to SADO.
Barry can use some of his billions to "help" Kezia and his other Kenya relatives and officials to testify and provide documents to affirm the validity of the Kezia-BHO Sr marriage, if that will help Barry exercise the "Bastard Option"!
I have been so busy on this thread (and fighting off ME/CFS brain-fog) that I haven't been able to check out that thread yet. I will admit to “expectation bias” having predicted he would declare himself a bastard to save his butt. In nearly 100 comments on the thread there are some skeptics.
VERY interesting .. Huckabee = questioning if admissions records to show if he got any loans as a foreign student
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eb9sGq6Sfk&feature=player_embedded
Never heard him wander into the mirage ...
To do this, Obama is going to have ask to reschedule the hearing or find some way to buy time. And again, correspondence, suspicions, even a few personal claims are not going to outweigh the legal documents that are already established Barak as the husband of SAD and father of SADDER. But for fun, let’s put Kezia on the stand:
Hatfield: So you claim you were married to Obama’s father. Do you have a marriage license to prove this??
Kezia: Ummmm, click, click, noook, bock
Interpreter: She says she loved him very much.
Hatfield: Yes, but a marriage license, do you have one?
Kezia: Uhhdzu, makka, makka
Interpreter: She says she makes a mean shepherd’s pie. Would you like to try some??
The bigamy angle runs afoul of the divorce proceedings, which are publicly documented. There is a stature somewhere, I forget where at the moment, in which the government/s are permitted to assume the birth certification of the father’s name is legitimate whether or not the named birth father is false. The legal father does not need to be the biological father for the purposees of Hawaii’s birth certification and divorce proceedings. IIRC, the statutes are Hawaiian.
The U.S. Department of State has some other things to say about births out of wedlock for births abroad.
7 FAM 1133.4-3 Birth Out of Wedlock to American Mother
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. Claims Under Section 309(c) INA: A child born abroad out of wedlock on or after December 24, 1952, to a U.S. citizen mother acquires U.S. citizenship if the mother was physically present continuously for 1 year in the United States or its outlying possessions at any time prior to the child’s birth. This did not change under any of the amendments to Section 309 INA. Thus a woman who had spent only a very short time every year outside the United States would be unable to transmit citizenship under section 309(c) INA even though she might have qualified to transmit U.S. citizenship under section 301(g) INA if she had been married to the father of the child. The 1966 amendment to section 301 INA allowing members of the U.S. armed forces, employees of the U.S. Government and certain international organizations, and their dependents to count certain periods outside the United States as U.S. physical presence does not apply to section 309(c) INA. For this reason, the mother of a child born out of wedlock cannot use time spent abroad as a military dependent, for example, to satisfy all or part of the requirement of continuous physical presence in the United States for 1 year. Subsequent legitimation or the establishment of a legal relationship between an alien father and a person who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth under section 309(c) does not alter that person’s citizenship.
b. Claims under Old 309(a): Prior to the November 14, 1986, amendments to section 309(a), section 309(a) did not apply exclusively to the out of wedlock children of U.S. citizen fathers, but could also be applied to the out of wedlock children of U.S. citizen mothers. As a result, a person born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother who could not transmit
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 40 of 81
citizenship under section 309(c) because she had not been physically present in the United States or outlying possessions for the continuous 1-year period may claim citizenship under old 309(a). As discussed previously, under old 309(a) the child’s paternity must have been established by legitimation before the child’s 21st birthday. If this condition is met, old 309(a) permits acquisition through section 301(g) (formerly 301(a)(7)), which requires that the citizen parent (mother or father), before the child’s birth, have amassed the 10 years of U.S. physical presence, including 5 after age 14. Persons born out of wedlock to alien fathers and U.S. citizen mothers on or after November 14, 1986 cannot claim citizenship under 309(a) because new 309(a) requires that the father have been a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth.
c. Retention requirements: The retention requirements of former section 301(b) INA did not apply to children who acquired U.S. citizenship under section 309(c) INA by birth out of wedlock to American mothers.
The Obama Administration may have struggled to assert the claim of a jus soli birth in Hawaii in order to employ the above 7 FAM 1130 provisions for a birth out of wedlock within the United States, instead of abroad for a mother 1 year underage.
And here’s Obama’s defense attorney:
Jablonski: My client has recently learned that the facts of his birth are not what he believed when he was growing up. Some of the details on his birth certificate are accurate and some are not, in fact, the certificate was falsely completed by his mother, who desperately believed she had a real marriage. And while the pretend .... I mean, presumed husband did not attend the birth of the child, she still wrote his name down as the father, assuming they would have a glorious life together in Kenya ... ummm, I mean as U.S. citizens who are loyal to the U.S. We can’t take that birth certificate to be factual evidence, other than the place of birth, but the rest has no credibility, because Obama’s father didn’t know he was going to be a father ... I mean, his mother was going to tell him the next time she saw him, although they didn’t live together and he wasn’t fully aware she was having a baby or that she would claim they were married, that is until later ... and then it turned out he was already married, and when she found out three years later, after he was attending Harvard, she promptly had the marriage annulled because of bigamy ... wait, I guess she divorced because of incompatability, but she honestly thought they were married, even though she had talked to Kezia, and so, the birth certificate, well we have to understand that it is part true and part false ... and obviously this will show that Obama is conclusively a natural-born citizen and not a natural-born subject as he posted on his campaign website for the last four years ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.