Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attorney Hatfield's Response to GA Secretary of State about Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision
Obama Release Your Records ^ | Tuesday, February 7, 2012; 5:14 AM

Posted on 02/07/2012 11:38:23 AM PST by Red Steel

Attorney Mark Hatfield's Response to Georgia Secretary of State

Brian Kemp About Judge Malihi's Erroneous Decision
Article II Super PAC Email

Greetings,

Kevin Powell and Carl Swensson's counsel, Mark Hatfield, early this morning sent his response to judicial errors of fact and law to Georgia's Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, in response to Judge Michael Malihi's decision in the Georgia ballot challenge.

Click this link to read Attorney Hatfield's response - http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

Below is the ending portion of Attorney Hatfield's 6-page rebuttal letter to the Georgia Secretary of State. Read the whole letter!

"Please note that the foregoing cited errors, omissions, and flaws in Judge Malihi's "Decision" are not intended to be exhaustive, and Plaintiffs specifically reserve the right to raise other claims of error hereafter.

Mr. Secretary, as you deliberate on your final determination of Defendant Obama's qualifications to seek and hold office, I am requesting, on behalf of my clients, that you consider the posture of these matters. Defendant Obama has initiated the submission of his name as a candidate to be listed on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Ballot. Likewise, in accordance with their rights under Georgia law, my clients have raised a challenge to the Defendant's qualifications as a "natural born Citizen" pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution. The Defendant and his lawyer tried, unsuccessfully, to have my clients' challenges dismissed. The Defendant was then legally served with a Notice to Produce, requiring him to appear at trial and to bring certain documents and items of evidence with him. The Defendant did not object. When the time for trial was imminent, the Defendant's lawyer wrote a letter to you in which he boldly criticized and attacked the judge and in which he stated that he and his client were refusing to come to court. The day of trial, after you warned him that his failure to appear would be at his own peril, the Defendant and his lawyer nevertheless failed to appear for court and failed to comply with the Plaintiffs' valid Notice to Produce. The Defendant thus not only presented no evidence of his own, but he failed to produce significant pieces of evidence to which Plaintiffs were legally entitled. Inexplicably, Judge Malihi, after verbally acknowledging Plaintiffs' entitlement to a "default judgment," then entered an order fully favorable to the recalcitrant Defendant, and to top it off, the judge refused to even acknowledge Plaintiffs' attempts to have Defendant held accountable for his purposefully contemptuous behavior in ignoring Plaintiffs' Notice to Produce.

Doesn't this result sound unreasonable? Doesn't this result appear on its face unfair? Doesn't this result in fact suggest that the Defendant is above the law?

Mr. Secretary, I am respectfully requesting on behalf of my clients that you render a decision in this matter that treats Defendant Obama no different than any other candidate seeking access to the Georgia ballot who fails and refuses to present evidence of his or her qualifications for holding office and who disregards the authority of our judiciary. I request that my clients' challenges to Defendant Obama's qualifications be sustained and upheld.

Finally, in view of the rapidly approaching Presidential Preference Primary in Georgia on March 6, 2012, I respectfully request that you enter a decision in these matters on an expedited basis."


READ THE FULL LETTER DEBUNKING THE DECISION BY JUDGE MALIHI HERE. IT ALSO DEBUNKS CLAIMS MADE BY OTHERS.

Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.


TOPICS: Education; Government
KEYWORDS: georgiahearing; georgiasos; malihi; markhatfield; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-257 next last
To: MHGinTN

I respectfully disagree. Please show me in the U.S. Constitution where there are citizenship types classified as “naturalized citizen” and “native citizen”.

You will not find them because they are not there. If they were, they would distinguish their rights as being unique, distinct, and unequal under the Supreme Law of the land (the Declaration of Independence). All Citizens of the United States have the same rights under the Constitution. Natural Born Citizens have all the rights of any Citizen of the United States with the additional privilege of being eligible for the presidency.


51 posted on 02/07/2012 7:06:00 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

Malihi opined, “... none of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony”.

Yet, Obots continue with the meme Plaintiffs testified on behalf of the Defendant after Farrar complained the Defendant has not provided verifiable documentation to his satisfaction the Defendant was eligible for the office he was running for.

Consequently, Malihi ordered Defendant to appear in a pretrial Order and provide evidence he was eligible for the office. Why won’t Obama answer questions under Oath concerning his eligibility?

Is is afraid to answer questions under oath, such as:

1) Have you ever been issued a Passport from a country other than the U.S? If so, which country or countries?

2) When you applied for your SSN with the SSA, were you living in the State of Connecticut or did your legal custodian, located in the State of Connecticut, apply on your behalf? What was the name of your legal custodian in Connecticut?

3) After your 18th birthday, did you attend Occidental College as a U.S. Citizen or foreign national?

4) Are you a foreign national, now, or were you issued a Certificate of Naturalization after you completed the naturalization requirements?


52 posted on 02/07/2012 7:10:48 PM PST by SvenMagnussen (What would MacGyver do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“Do so at your own peril”...wasn’t this from his memo?????? More hot air, talks cheap you friggin coward.

None of this makes sense.

The Zero regime must be using nuclear option or this government is completely hijacked and overthrown and nobody knows it yet.

This unaccountable puppet is being set up to win again and Romney set up for the perfect fall guy. Part of the RINO establishment wants Zero to win (that is squat in the White Hut illegaly again), period.

More and more it’s apparent we are in pre-restoration/revolution times and this blather is all window dressing, a legal charade, political theater; while the ruling class passes NDAA, attempts to regulate the net, it’s various police forces like FBI noting “anti-government extremists”. There’s gonna be a fight folks. Prepare and let’s win.


53 posted on 02/07/2012 7:40:16 PM PST by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigJ
“Do so at your own peril”...wasn’t this from his memo?????? More hot air, talks cheap you friggin coward.

None of this makes sense.

The Zero regime must be using nuclear option or this government is completely hijacked and overthrown and nobody knows it yet.

Take a careful look at what's being said, here:

Were FBI Agents Carrying Out Orders When They Said That Enforcing the Constitution Regarding Obama Would Cause a Civil War?

Hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens are being held hostage by the threat of a Civil War if anyone dares to successfully challenge Obama's eligibility to be President of the U.S.

54 posted on 02/07/2012 7:57:47 PM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: TheBigJ

What you said.


55 posted on 02/07/2012 7:59:05 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: devattel; rxsid

Hows the 1787 edition you touched and read? Seen it lately?

You know..”natural born citizens are born to citizen parents”.


56 posted on 02/07/2012 8:05:26 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

As I mentioned before, I have not seen it for quite some time. There are so few copies left, the only one I know in existance publically visible is in the Library of Congress.

Has anyone in the D.C. area visited the Library of Congress to review the document?


57 posted on 02/07/2012 8:13:50 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: devattel

Keep spittling your crap and maybe your brown eyes will turn blue! ... You already know that if what you claim were true then the founders would not have bothered to state qualification for the office of president as NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, they would have just said citizen, as they use the term in the 14th Amendment, which amendment was written by the guy who stated in Congressional debate that the one class of citizen over which there is no debate is NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.. So back tot he reality and your ridiculous try at limiting everything to what is precisely worded int he Constitution. Agitprop liars like you already know you’re just trying to create confusion. Piddle along now


58 posted on 02/07/2012 8:23:49 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Your statements may be good and well, provided you have the Constitution to support your claims. Please, by all means point out in the U.S. Constitution where there are any other classes of citizenship other than a Citizen of the United States or a Natural Born Citizen.

Knock yourself out, and I wish you luck in your endeavor.

In case you are wondering, I do not believe being born in the United States as being a Natural Born Citizen, so your attack on this premise may be unfounded and a time-wasting exercise.

59 posted on 02/07/2012 8:38:06 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: devattel

Bless your little heart, you just can’t seem to get confusion started, can you? Stick to those talking points, poor thing, regardless of what anyone responds. Have Nice Day, agitprop.


60 posted on 02/07/2012 8:49:33 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Zero proven born abroad and illegal alien would destroy the governments and media’s credibility. All the institutions would be questioned. It would put us at national security risk with our enemies abroad because of confusions/chaos with chain of command... though our domestic enemies are already here with foreign support. We would be the laughing stock of the world. To some extent, all of this is already true.

However, the enemies of the republic are living in a dream world. Concerning some of the police state actions like controlling the internet, etc the whole populace is united in defiance regardless of gay marriage stance. So the current domestic enemies and homeland security forces are in fantasy land. Also, their attempts to do a top-down command and control of such a huge system here will never be efficient, it’s too large and the agency’s too incompetent unless you garnish lots of attention and can’t get out of the way, also the efforts for police actions are going to fracture with oathkeepers and dissension within the ranks.


61 posted on 02/07/2012 8:49:33 PM PST by TheBigJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

My marbles are still at play and I have no intention of taking them elsewhere.

You have yet to answer my questions based on the Constitution. I wish you luck on your next match, wherever your marbles may lie.


62 posted on 02/07/2012 8:54:38 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: devattel

How’d you do Arabic script in your post?


63 posted on 02/07/2012 9:21:31 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: devattel

Why don’t you visit the library of congress Loren?


64 posted on 02/07/2012 9:22:13 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

They create id’s..join forums making pretense to establish credibility,...then they send freep mail asking personal questions..or ask what are your ids on other forums.

We know foggy is a certified nut. Loren is walking freak show.

All of them are in wacko land.


65 posted on 02/07/2012 9:35:29 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

That is actually Persian script. It is easy enough to do by cutting and pasting from tools such as the Google Translator.


66 posted on 02/07/2012 9:39:36 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I may visit the LOC soon. The problem is I have to do so much business there where I have difficulties spending 2 days working with the staff to arrange a clean-room inspection of the protected documents therein.


67 posted on 02/07/2012 9:41:49 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Loren? Who is Loren?


68 posted on 02/07/2012 9:43:02 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: devattel

Ask your self that question.


69 posted on 02/07/2012 10:01:05 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: devattel

It’s the same basic script. Persian just introduces a few additional characters via more dots and such.

The cursed lack of short vowels is pretty much the same though.


70 posted on 02/07/2012 10:08:49 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Do not make accusations on false premises, friend. If I show you my true identity and it is not who you believe me to be, will you agree to leave Free Republic forever?


71 posted on 02/07/2012 10:12:32 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Obunga is an admitted born dual citizen. Entitled to hold both a US passport and a Kenyan Passport. My daughter is entitled to two passports as well. He and his wife have stated in public, in front of thousands, that his home country is Kenya. He is correct. He was born with Kenya citizenship.

If having a born dual national in the oval office spending us into ruin is legitimate, than yes, Mohammad Obunga is qualified.

If the Kenyan Mohammad Obunga is qualified, then my daughter can become a General in a foreign army and then return to the USA and become president.

72 posted on 02/08/2012 5:12:44 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; All

Peter Boyles Show

Monday, February 06, 2012
February 6, 2012 6am

Dr. Jerome Corsi joins the show to discuss the ruling handed down by Judge Malihi which will allow Obama to appear on the Georgia ballot in November. Peter takes calls in the latter half of the hour.

http://www.khow.com/player/?station=KHOW-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=fullshow_boyles.xml&mid=21793027


73 posted on 02/08/2012 6:31:47 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

What Price Freedom?

POST-MALIHI RULING ANALYSIS AND INTERVIEW WITH CARL SWENSSON

http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/07/what-price-freedom/


74 posted on 02/08/2012 6:33:43 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: TheBigJ
...also the efforts for police actions are going to fracture with oath keepers and dissension within the ranks.

Maybe many would like to think that, but it's been more than three years and we still have an ineligible president, and NDAA, etc. I don't see much dissension. I see a lot of going along to get along, like the reference to the FBI agents alluding to a threat of Civil War if Obama is proven ineligible that I posted earlier.

75 posted on 02/08/2012 7:21:29 AM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: devattel; bushpilot1
There simply is no 1787 version with that kind of wording in English.

If there where, rest 100% assured that it would have shown up on http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/. Leo's been all over the L.O.C., multiple times.

The 1797 English version simply corrected the mis-translation of the earlier English copies.

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 197 of 592) [Note: A ~22 MB PDF]:
Section title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural" Clearly there is a differentiation made between "Citizens" and "Natural" (born citizens). See below.

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
-------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
-------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"


76 posted on 02/08/2012 9:33:41 AM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
One plaintiff stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii

“Plaintiff Welden has already stipulated that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. See Welden Opp. Mtn. “

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/counsel-proposes-a-separate-hearing-for-welden-v-obama-ga

So the Judge has to come up with one ruling that answers all three cases. So the judge had in front of him:

1. One plaintiff that stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii.

2. Another plaintiff that entered into evidence a birth certificate that states that Obama was born in Hawaii.

3. And the ravings of Orly Taitz.

Why is hard to understand why he would rule that Obama was born in Hawaii?

77 posted on 02/08/2012 10:53:51 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Welden did stipulate that Obama was born in Hawaii:

“Plaintiff Welden has already stipulated that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. See Welden Opp. Mtn. “

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/counsel-proposes-a-separate-hearing-for-welden-v-obama-ga

So the judge had in front of him:

1. One plaintiff that stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii. And entered a birthcertificate to that effect.

2. Did not submit any evidence to challenge that stipulation.

3. And the ravings of Orly Taitz.

Why is hard to understand why he would rule that Obama was born in Hawaii?


78 posted on 02/08/2012 11:09:29 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Welden did stipulate that Obama was born in Hawaii:

“Plaintiff Welden has already stipulated that the Defendant was born in Hawaii, that the Defendant is a U.S. Citizen, and that the Defendant was Constitutionally-qualified to serve as a U.S. Senator. See Welden Opp. Mtn. “

http://obamaballotchallenge.com/counsel-proposes-a-separate-hearing-for-welden-v-obama-ga

So the judge had in front of him:

1. One plaintiff that stipulated that Obama was born in Hawaii. And entered a birthcertificate to that effect.

2. Another plaintiff that did not submit any evidence to challenge that stipulation.

3. And the ravings of Orly Taitz.

Why is hard to understand why he would rule that Obama was born in Hawaii?


79 posted on 02/08/2012 11:09:57 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Why help your sworn enemies when they are making legal fools of themselves?

Three plaintiffs couldn’t beat an empty table.


80 posted on 02/08/2012 11:20:48 AM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: devattel; rxsid

Fogbow planted a false story regarding a Kenyan birth certificate. You came here planting a false story about reading ‘natural born citizens are born to citizen parents’ in a 1787 edition Law of Nations.

You “wore gloves”.


81 posted on 02/08/2012 11:40:45 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
That is your error. They were NOT arguing Vattel’s natural law, but using a common legal term, with a meaning known to all.

Complete nonsense and here's in part why.


Former King subjects who were naturalized as citizen of the United States were still considered British as "natural born subject" of the King by British law [not natural].

As of consequence, the British blockaded American ports and took thousands of American citizens from US ships to serve the British Navy because of under English Common law, birth itself was an act of naturalization [not natural] that required no consent of allegiance and that could never be changed. It was “perpetual allegiance” to Great Britain - "Once a Brit always a Brit".

This baneful English Common Law doctrine, [not natural] to say the least, received the greatest degree of hate from American citizens. The English Common Law was extremely hated that the United States declared war on it and England. This English Common law [not natural] was thrown off completely in the garbage bin of history when the US Constitution was adopted, and you think it was the original intent of the Founders? You're smoking something illegal. When an immigrant becomes a US citizen, the naturalized citizen renounces his former royal titles and sovereigns when he takes the oath allegiance to the United States.

Why is that Ms. Rogers? Obama was born a foreigner, or he inherited a double or triple allegiance at birth to other foreign countries. That's not natural.

Even today, the United States frowns upon double allegiances as it is written in the oath of allegiance to the US when one becomes a citizen. However, the misconstruing by the court about the 14th Amendment has created double allegiances since WKA. That's not natural.

A quote for Congress report No. 784, June 22, 1874.

“The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

And the reason why:

"It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty. "

Again, what foreign national(s) was Obama born as? Oh yes, that's right. He was born as a British/Kenyan subject to the crown of Great Britain. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the US.

The Common Wealth known as Massachusetts was not the United States under the US Constitution at the time, and I noticed you let one slip with your usual copy/pasting where it says 'natural born Citizens' instead of 'natural born subjects' after the state of Massachusetts ratified the US Constitution in 1788.

In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

Your machination will not ever persuade making Obama a Natural Born Citizen.

82 posted on 02/08/2012 1:35:40 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
From your WND article post - ping to Hatfield's appeal plans...

Knew it was coming. You should read his scathing letter to GA, SoS Kemp posted and linked here, and review this thread. :-)

Therefore, Hatfield did NOT conflict with Dr. Taitz’s LFBC forgery claims and there was no finding of fact by Malihi that the White House pdf LFBC copy was genuine, only that Malihi “considered” SADO to be Barry's mom and Barry to have been born in HI without reference to any specific evidence.

I've known this from the very beginning. I've been arguing with the Foggy OBots who rely on the courts to be dishonest that I've pointed out time and time again.

83 posted on 02/08/2012 1:45:37 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“The Common Wealth known as Massachusetts was not the United States under the US Constitution at the time, and I noticed you let one slip with your usual copy/pasting where it says ‘natural born Citizens’ instead of ‘natural born subjects’ after the state of Massachusetts ratified the US Constitution in 1788.”

Stupid:

In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”

In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”

In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”

Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”


84 posted on 02/08/2012 2:20:12 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
“I've been arguing with the Foggy OBots who rely on the courts to be dishonest that I've pointed out time and time again.”

I just wanted to emphasize it one more time for the lurking or stealth Fogbots and for any FReepers who may have been concerned.

85 posted on 02/08/2012 2:35:52 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; DiogenesLamp
Stupid:

No that's all you. The words by Massachusetts doesn't change the meaning and the intent behind the natural born citizen clause. A misrepresentation of the meaning to Natural Born SUBject being only born in the Kings Dominion where the parents have no meaning. That's not the case to the actual meaning of natural born. You are hung up on BS semantic games. Of course, from a royal King's viewpoint, everyone should be naturally SUBservient to him and his crown aliens and all, but that's not the true meaning of the US Constitution clause and not so in the US as I so clearly pointed out to you above.

Here's some proof of facts that you continue to ignore.

From a US Constitutional Founder John Adam's own lawbook. Read closely and see if you can understand.


86 posted on 02/08/2012 3:03:42 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“The words by Massachusetts doesn’t change the meaning and the intent behind the natural born citizen clause.”

Actually, it does. It shows the Massachusetts legislature - one of the 13 original ratifiers of the Constitution (February 6, 1788, #6 to do so) used NBS & NBC interchangeably. Thus, one of the 13 ratifiers of the Constitution obviously considered NBC to be the full and interchangeable equivalent of NBS.


87 posted on 02/08/2012 3:17:57 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I see that "you forgot" to read the John Adam's Law book excerpt.

Here's what it states in the first paragraph.

"All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominion. "


As noted in the history books that the Law of Nation was highly influential to the US Constitution if not being the driving force behind it. Notice the founder's names highlighted and John Adam's name included

De Vattel Character for Life Influence of the Founders


However, as have been told to you many times over that this English Common law statute has no effect to the natural born citizen clause. As de Vattel aptly states excerpted below from The Law of Nations:


"In England however, being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner. It is asked, whether the children born of citizens of a foreign country, are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot itself furnith any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;"

88 posted on 02/08/2012 4:53:02 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

>>...No. They used natural born subject and natural born citizen interchangeably for a number of years...<<

Nope. Vattel’s Law of Nations definition of NBC was the commonly held definition at the time of the framing of the constitution in the then (ahem) “civilized world”.

>>...Had they done so, there would have been no improvement in understanding...<<

There was no need, nor intent to “improve the understanding” of citizenship with the 14th Amend. Look into “why” the 14th Amend. was needed. The clue word for you is, “reparations”. It was not enacted to define who met Art-II qualifications for President. That was likely the furthest from their minds at the time. For one thing, they needed to confer “citizenship” upon recently freed slaves. If they wanted to magically bestow NBC status upon them (outside of the “natural” process) then they could have used the phrase, “natural-born-citizens” and removed all doubt. But they didn’t, because that was not their concern nor intent. So, they used the non-specific, generic “citizen” declining to specify naturalized, natural or otherwise.

Again, NBC is mentioned only once, and then only as a qualification for president. That is the context in which it was used, *NOT* as a qualifier for granting citizenship. The founders intent was to assure that subsequent Presidential candidates had no birth allegiance to any other nation except the USA. At the time, Vattel’s Law Of Nations was their ready-reference and defined NBC (as was commonly held at the time) as a citizen born in country to two citizen parents (jus soli *AND* jus sanguinis combined) which removes all possibility of any foreign birth allegiance. Vattel didn’t make that up out of whole-cloth, he recorded the then commonly held definition and well articulated the foundation for it.

Now you appear to think that just because some later black-robed scoundrels and politi-sluts felt the need to re-define citizenship somehow changes the founder’s intent. It simply does not and it flies in the face of simple common sense. So again, legalistically, in a court of perverted law, dual-citizenship foreigners *NOW* meet the qualification to become President. There’s nothing we can do about it but marvel at how inane and “wrong-headed” it has become; that it does not in any way, shape or form make it “right”, it merely makes it “legal”. If only more folks had the common sense to tell the difference.


89 posted on 02/08/2012 5:05:18 PM PST by jaydee770
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“”All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominion. “”

Yep. Just like WKA wrote. Doesn’t say citizen-parents.

You admit Vattel wrote:

“By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot itself furnith any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;”

That is Swiss law. It is NOT US law, nor was it US law at any time. You could have and often did have a non-citizen father giving birth to a citizen child. A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, as the NY Supreme Court ruled in the 1840s, and no court has ever overturned.


90 posted on 02/08/2012 5:20:42 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: jaydee770

“Vattel’s Law of Nations definition of NBC was the commonly held definition at the time of the framing of the constitution in the then (ahem) “civilized world”.

Interesting. “Natural Born Citizen” did not appear in any translation of Vattel until 10 years AFTER the US Constitution. Indeed, writing in the 1750s, where no democracy or republic existed on earth, Vattel would have needed to write about ‘natural born subjects’ - or, in French, sujets naturel. He never ever wrote that phrase.

He wrote, “The natives, or indigenes”. 10 years after the Constitution, a translator ‘translated’ indigenes (an English word as well as French, “a person or thing that is indigenous or native; native” - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indigenes) NBC.

And, as has been pointed out, the Mass legislature used NBC interchangeably with natural born subject for years after the Constitution. That means one of the original 13 ratifiers of the Constitution - remember, state legislatures voted on the Constitution - understood NBC to be fully interchangeable with NBS.


91 posted on 02/08/2012 5:29:48 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
That is Swiss law. It is NOT US law, nor was it US law at any time. You could have and often did have a non-citizen father giving birth to a citizen child. A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, as the NY Supreme Court ruled in the 1840s, and no court has ever overturned.


Because Emerich de Vattel was Swiss he only wrote about Swiss law? LoL. Rogers you're so full of BS.

It's not Swiss law you ninny. Vattel wrote about universal Natural law that just as real as Positive law.
natural law v. positive law excerpt

And you got some obscure NY Supreme Court Nonsense?? LoL. Come on.

I got the US Supreme Court holding explicitly stating that Natural born citizens are to have two parent citizens and born in the United States.

92 posted on 02/08/2012 5:54:41 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Yep. Just like WKA wrote. Doesn’t say citizen-parents.

That's because the wife ALWAYS took on her husband's citizenship upon marriage. And daughters and sons did the same, as they inherited their citizenship from the father. Really no need to mention it. Back in the day and as late as 1932, if an American female married a foreign citizen, she lost her U.S. citizenship upon marriage and took her citizenship of her husband. The world still is mostly patriarchal societies. It's the very reason you inherited your father's last name and not your mom's maiden name.

93 posted on 02/08/2012 6:29:52 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"I got the US Supreme Court holding explicitly stating that Natural born citizens are to have two parent citizens and born in the United States."

No, you have a court case that says that is, at least, A category of NBC, and that it wasn't going to try to determine things further. That is why, when this nutjob complains that the judge didn't obey Minor, he will once again be laughed out of court.

"Because Emerich de Vattel was Swiss he only wrote about Swiss law?"

No. But his definition that citizenship is based solely on the father is a Swiss definition, not English or American. You will notice that no one checks the citizenship of your parents when you apply for a US passport...


94 posted on 02/08/2012 6:45:43 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

>>... or, in French, sujets naturel. He never ever wrote that phrase...<<

Too bad Jefferson was just a simpleton who could barely read and write English, much less be fluent enough in French to understand what he was reading. Too bad the other founders involved in the framing of the Constitution were dumb mono-linguists too.../sarc

But seriously, it’s latter translation stands accurate in communicating the original. To attempt to argue it changed the meaning & intent is laughable. Again, Vattel didn’t create the concept of a “natural born citizen” out of whole-cloth, he merely codified the commonly held understanding. From the common-sense point of view, he codified what was held as a citizen “by nature”. A native with no need for state-action. The combination of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis at birth left *NO OTHER POSSIBILITY* for additional citizenship by birth — you are a citizen by nature.

That’s why the translation stands as “natural-born-citizen” and it is the clear, obvious, unarguable translation. The founders and anyone else from that time on clearly understood this. Natural-born is “natural” born. As regards intent, there is nothing in the Mass legislature’s usage, nor is there anything in recorded history before, during or since the framing of the Constitution that indicated the founders, when using the exact phrase “natural born citizen” in the context of presidential qualifications, meant they intended someone subsequently born with multi-citizenship as being qualified as president. Even the mere suggestion of that argument wholly invalidates your point of view. It is revisionism writ large. Again, nothing subsequent courts or legislatures do will change the founders original intent.


95 posted on 02/08/2012 6:54:37 PM PST by jaydee770
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
No. But his definition that citizenship is based solely on the father is a Swiss definition, not English or American.

Oh please LoL. You can pile it very high.

The full title of his book.

"The law of nations: or, Principles of the law of nature, applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns"

Gee sport, nothing about specific Swiss law here.

You will notice that no one checks the citizenship of your parents when you apply for a US passport...

No reason to check if you're an NBC as that is not applicable. Just being a US citizen will suffice. A pretty dumb example.

No, you have a court case that says that is, at least, A category of NBC, and that it wasn't going to try to determine things further. That is why, when this nutjob complains that the judge didn't obey Minor, he will once again be laughed out of court.

Hate to break it too you sport but the 'nutjobs' and weaklings have taken over government. You can start with Malihi. It's called dishonesty through and through. It's called lying because the truth doesn't get them what they want or the desired results. That's being the 'nutjub' for whatever reasons because they lack basic, human integrity skills.

96 posted on 02/08/2012 7:12:12 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: jaydee770

“Again, Vattel didn’t create the concept of a “natural born citizen” out of whole-cloth, he merely codified the commonly held understanding.”

No, he did not. At no time did Vattel ever attempt to define “natural born citizen”. He never uses the phrase. He also wrote on citizenship from the Swiss perspective, not English - which Vattel admitted. The phrase NBC didn’t EXIST when Vattel was writing...

“As regards intent, there is nothing in the Mass legislature’s usage, nor is there anything in recorded history before, during or since the framing of the Constitution that indicated the founders...”

Sorry, but no one denies that NBS included those born of alien parents. And the ratifiers of the Constitution used NBS = NBC. It takes gross revisionism to suggest that a 1797 book guided the document written in 1787. In fact, only an idiot would suggest it...


97 posted on 02/08/2012 7:26:59 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"Here's what it states in the first paragraph."

This just restates the Common Law that anyone born in the realm is a subject with several exceptions. The word "Obedience" is the same as allegiance.

From "A New And Complete Law Dictionary or General Abridgement of the Law" Timothy Cunningham, 1764 (Also in John Adams' library and used by the Continental Congress)

'Allegiance or Ligeance - Is the lawful obedience, which a subject is bound to render to his soverneign'

In your reference in the right hand column is the footnote to the Calvin's Case. In that case Lord Coke noted,

"Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joined with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, and the indictment concluded contraligeant’ suæ debitum, for he owed to the King local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection; which local obedience being but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject; a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it hath been said, is alia ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject”

Also from Cunningham's law dictionary is the definition of alien. It includes the same definition as your references

"All those are natural born subjects whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our King, and whose place of birth was within his dominions.”

And than goes on to give various examples including the following, "If an alien comes into England, and has issue two sons, those two sons are indigeneae, subjects born, because born within the realm."

98 posted on 02/08/2012 7:44:45 PM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
Well, you must be the new guy from Foggy-land.

Regardless. If you would have read more of the post, you would have came upon what I wrote here:

However, as have been told to you many times over that this English Common law statute has no effect to the natural born citizen clause. As de Vattel aptly states excerpted below from The Law of Nations:

The meaning and intent of the founders for the natural born citizen clause is Natural law written in the Law of Nations, and not some English regulation or statute being a natural born SUBject.

99 posted on 02/08/2012 7:58:01 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
You may wish to read Professor of Law Polly Price's article, "Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin's Case (1608)"

"The roots of United States conceptions of birthright citizenship lie deep in England's medieval past. This Article explores Calvin's Case (1608) and the early modern common-law mind that first articulated a theoretical basis for territorial birthright citizenship. Involving all the important English judges of the day, Calvin's Case addressed the question of whether persons born in Scotland, following the descent of the English crown to the Scottish King James VI in 1603, would be considered "subjects" in England. Calvin's Case determined that all persons born within any territory held by the King of England were to enjoy the benefits of English law as subjects of the King. A person born within the King's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign and in turn was entitled to the King's protection. Calvin's Case is the earliest, most influential theoretical articulation by an English court of what came to be the common-law rule that a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth. In the view of Sir Edward Coke, one of the judges deciding Calvin's Case, the court's determination was required by the divine law of nature, which was "indeed . . . the eternal law of the Creator" and "part of the law of England." 1997, Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities

And the Founder's were well aware of the Calvin's Case:

"in Calvins Case, who was not of the Realm, but yet was no Alien because born within the Allegiance of [the King]." John Adams, April, 17, 1775 "To the Inhabitants of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay"

100 posted on 02/09/2012 12:33:06 AM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-257 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson