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

Skip to comments.

The True Meaning and Interpretation of Article II "natural born Citizen
Post & Email ^ | Nov. 4, 2010 | Jedi Pauly

Posted on 11/04/2010 8:01:39 PM PDT by STE=Q

I wish to undertake a critical analysis of the incomplete works of attorneys Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, and Mario Apuzzo, concerning the meaning and definition of "natural born Citizen" within the political context and intent of Article II. It is my contention that none of the attorneys working on exposing the illegal usurper known as Barack Obama have described any valid theory of law that properly explains why Obama cannot possibly qualify to be President under Article II. I will show what I believe are their mistakes and limitations and expose their incomplete efforts as failed hypotheses rather than valid correct legal theories. I will then state the correct and complete legal theory that I believe clearly defines "natural born Citizen" within the context and intent of Article II and show how and why Obama cannot possibly qualify for the office of President.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 19thamendment; apuzzo; articleii; bingham; birthers; certifigate; constitution; jedipauly; kenya; lawofnations; marioapuzzo; minorvhappersett; naturalborncitizen; naturallaw; naturalrights; nbc; obama; orlytaitz; philberg; positivelaw; scotus; unalienable; usurper; vattel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 11/04/2010 8:01:42 PM PDT by STE=Q
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; cripplecreek; stockpirate; LucyT; pissant; traditional1; real_patriotic_american; ...

PING!

STE=Q


2 posted on 11/04/2010 8:03:00 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

What a crock.
Why does this guy ignore the U.S. law of the early 20th century which goes a long way toward defining what is - and is not - a “natural born citizen?”

Without that law, those like John McCain who were born outside our borders but in U.S. possessions would also not qualify to be President.


3 posted on 11/04/2010 8:14:35 PM PDT by Redbob (W.W.J.B.D.: "What Would Jack Bauer Do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

sfl


4 posted on 11/04/2010 8:22:34 PM PDT by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

“Why does this guy ignore the U.S. law of the early 20th century which goes a long way toward defining what is - and is not - a ‘natural born citizen’?”


He does not ignore “law of the early 20th century.”

However, he draws a distinction between “Natural Law” (”creator” endowed) and Positive Law (man Made), as follows:

“There exists a Natural Law jurisdiction from which we derive our Natural Rights which are an endowment from Nature, and Natural Rights are unalienable.

There exists a Positive Law jurisdiction from which we derive our Legal Rights, and legal rights are privileges. Positive Law means man-made statutory law from the Latin root “posit” which means that which is declared and agreed to. It is sometimes referred to as “decreed law” under a monarchy political system.

Natural Law is defined to be opposite or opposed to the Positive Law.

Political Rights are Natural Rights which are Inherited from our Fathers (Declaration of Independence).”

STE=Q


5 posted on 11/04/2010 8:29:14 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

The one thing that has been made very, very clear is Obama’s loyalties do not lie with the United States of America.


6 posted on 11/04/2010 8:30:32 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q; All

“Why does this guy ignore the U.S. law of the early 20th century which goes a long way toward defining what is - and is not - a “natural born citizen?” Without that law, those like John McCain who were born outside our borders but in U.S. possessions would also not qualify to be President.”

I’m not taking a side on this issue. However, I do believe you did not read his article and understand his argument.

It boils down to the concept that neither law nor courts can change the constitution....only ammendments. The original meaning of the constitution stands until ammended.

In his view/understanding only the FATHER of the child mattered and NOT where the child was born. The child of a CITIZEN FATHER would be natural born regardless of where born. The MOTHER (in context of the 18th Century) cannot confer natural born status. Thus, John McCain being the sone of a citizen father is natural born and Barrack Obama being the son of a non-citizen is not. The mother’s citizenship has no bearing.

I do not know if he is correct, but I would guess that a court wouldn’t buy it because when women became full citizens, then some would infer that they now have the power to confer natural born status on their offspring.

His arguments only work under his original presumption that only ammendments to the constitution can change its meaning....and in his thinking the meaning would have veen clear to someone living in the late 18th Century....only the father mattered.


7 posted on 11/04/2010 8:37:36 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Hello Jedi Pauly,

I read your article and criticism of my position on what is a “natural born Citizen.” I must respectfully advise you that you do not understand my position. I would recommend that you read with care what I have written in my briefs to the courts and on my blog. You might then better understand what I have written.

I would like to now address what you have written. I do not know why you place me together with Orly Taitz on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” I believe you understate the extent of my work by doing so. Again, you can read Orly’s work and my work so that you can fully understand what each have contributed to the understanding of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

I have never said that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” has changed over time. I do not know where you got that from. Please provide a quote from me with a citation to support your allegation. On the contrary, I have always argued that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” has always been the same and has to this day, unlike the meaning of a “citizen of the United States,” never changed.

I never said that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents serving in our military are not “natural born Citizens.” On the contrary, I was probably the only one of the eligibility attorneys who said that a child born abroad to military U.S. citizen parents qualifies as a “natural born Citizen” under Vattel’s, Section 217.

As far as your distinction between males and females, natural law makes none other than what distinctions exists between them on a physical level. Whatever positive laws have said or may say about their rights does not change their equality in nature. I do not know why you discount the female so easily. The point is that both parents must be U.S. citizens when the child is born on U.S. soil (or its equivalent). Under natural law, the child acquires as much natural allegiance from the one as he/she does from the other.

I hope that this clears things up for you.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.


8 posted on 11/04/2010 9:03:57 PM PDT by Puzo1 (Ask the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

“It boils down to the concept that neither law nor courts can change the constitution....only ammendments. The original meaning of the constitution stands until ammended.”


See post #5

I wrote: “...he draws a distinction between “Natural Law” (”creator” endowed) and Positive Law (man Made)”

“Natural Law” (”creator” endowed) is — unalienable — and supersedes Positive Law (man Made)which IS alienable!

I do not see how even an amendment can remove a NATURAL —unalienable — right... a right based on natural law.

PS; I use the phrase “a right based on natural law” in the sense that a “Natural Born Citizen” has the “natural right” to run for President Of The United States — providing he meets the other requirements of age etc.

STE=Q


9 posted on 11/04/2010 9:16:39 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1

“As far as your distinction between males and females, natural law makes none other than what distinctions exists between them on a physical level.”


I would have to agree with you here.

However, I think he is trying to place the NBC definition in historical context...

... can be a little confusing and perhaps should be discarded in a legal argument, for the sake of clarity.

I REALLY like the way he explains the founders aversion the “titles and nobility.”

It brings up the infamous “lost” 13th amendment!

The amendment of “titles and nobility” that was (if I remember)only one state short of being ratified.

I am going to reread the article again and see what I may have missed.

STE=Q


10 posted on 11/04/2010 9:35:17 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1; All

The “Lost” Thirteenth Amendment

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/735109/posts

STE=Q


11 posted on 11/04/2010 9:46:27 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1

Mario, Thanks.

The courts may not remove the president. But the people will. We spread the word of this fraud every day.

I suspect a good majority of people now know the truth, and this is, in part, why the Mid Term election was such a tidal wave. 2012, if he is on the ticket, there wont be many Democrats left standing. The truth is crushing.


12 posted on 11/04/2010 9:50:11 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1

By the way... what’s with the “your honer” this and “your honer” that?

Yes, I know it’s just a “convention” — like referring to land “lords” and so forth — but the reality is that his/her honer is nor more honorable than any other citizen — and sometimes even less honorable.

I think the convention should be done away with.

You can keep the esc. thingy if if makes you happy. :)

PS; We are all honored, Mr.Puzo, to have you here.

STE=Q


13 posted on 11/04/2010 10:00:09 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

honer = honor


14 posted on 11/04/2010 10:04:03 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1
Maybe you should consider signing up at Democratic Underground.

The Dems aren't too happy with Obama right now. They're already talking about 2012 presidential primary challenges. They blame him for the mess they're in and want him gone.

I think the market is ripe to expand the birther franchise. Turn it into a bipartisan effort. Explain to the disgruntled Democrats your plan to remove Obama from office. Swoon them with some Monsieur De Vattel poetry. They'll never be more receptive to the idea than they are right now.

Democrat Birthers...the new black.

15 posted on 11/04/2010 10:31:28 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
It will be the courts along with Congress issuing subpoenas and having investigation , or alone with subpoena power that will issue subpoenas to find out what is in his papers and birth certificate.
It will be up to the people and Congress what will happen to him.
16 posted on 11/05/2010 2:04:06 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1

Please have a look at this thread..Kind as an adjective is natural and native...plus the grouping of the definitons in the Greek-English dictionary.

The author of the Greek-Eng dictionary is the son of a Founder. Enjoy searching..but..explaining what I located..not so enjoyable.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2620065/posts


17 posted on 11/05/2010 5:13:24 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

NBC is here..lol..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2620065/posts?q=1&;page=1


18 posted on 11/05/2010 5:28:22 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Another man’s opinion...

http://www.google.com/webhp?tab=mw#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=webhp&q=natural+born+citizen+edrivera.com&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=natural+born+citizen+edrivera.com&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6074c45f6c98b53d


19 posted on 11/05/2010 5:35:40 AM PDT by gunnyg (WE ARE BEHIND "ENEMY WITHIN" LINES, SURROUNDED, November? Ha! ...So Few Can "grok" It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
What they both fail to realize is that none of the U.S. Supreme Court cases have done anything at all to change the meaning and interpretation of Article II. They could not even if they wanted to, because it requires a Constitutional Amendment to change Article II, not a judge’s opinion or a statute from Congress.

This is a rather bold statement. Courts have interpreted the meaning of the Constitution ever since Marbury v. Madison and will continue to do so. The First Amendment has been interpreted beyond all original meaning to exile religion from the national fabric and well beyond the original and contemporary meaning of the establishment clause. The author's argument falls apart on its face.

Nowhere in this article is any mention of the 14th Amendment. Most jurists contend that the language of the 14th Amendment changed the meaning of Article II. Certainly, you can't make any argument about Article II natural born citizen without addressing the issues raised by the 14th Amendment.

This seems to be just another assertion of fact when it is just another argument that cannot be settled anywhere other than in the Federal Courts and they won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Life just isn't fair is it?

20 posted on 11/05/2010 5:41:49 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunnyg

edrivera.com


21 posted on 11/05/2010 5:49:21 AM PDT by gunnyg (WE ARE BEHIND "ENEMY WITHIN" LINES, SURROUNDED, November? Ha! ...So Few Can "grok" It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Wow, even other birthers keep a safe distance between your arguments and themselves.


22 posted on 11/05/2010 5:59:03 AM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1; bushpilot1
Birther Kleagle bushpilot1 wrote...

"It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendents of the White Europeans who formed the country.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2620065/posts?page=26#26

What say you?

23 posted on 11/05/2010 7:13:30 AM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1
Mario,

You do great work, however, you consistently have neglected the natural right of "expatriation" in your augments & writings. Expatriation is the "KEY" to proving that the founders & colonists had thrown off the feudal law of 'jus soli' & adopted the natural law of 'jus sanguinis'. When you write about the 14th, you can not define its meaning without the addition of the sister Act to it that was passed just mere days after the 14th was ratified. Without this right of expatriation, natural law citizenship does not exist and this right was proclaimed at the onset of the revolutionary war when people of the colonies had to make a choice, British or American, they couldn't claim both. This is the law of nature, man makes the choice, not the soil and thus it is the natural law citizenship that was adopted by our founders, not the feudal law of allegiance to a single person who claims ownership over the soil...

Expatriation Act of July 27, 1868

24 posted on 11/05/2010 8:52:08 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1

Good points and I don’t blame you for wanting to wash your hands of Orly Taitz...

Also, don’t forget that even if Obama had legal claim to a Natural Born citizen designation, Obama gave up his NB Citizenship status when he went to Kenya-—the other half of his dual citizenship-—and actively campaigned for Odinga.

Even the much ballyhooed “United States v. Wong Kim Ark” agrees with that!

Cheers


25 posted on 11/05/2010 9:19:35 AM PDT by DoctorBulldog (Here, intolerance... will not be tolerated! - (South Park))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
Jedi Pauly wrote the most sexist article on the subject I have seen thus far. I doubt Jedi has even read any of the laws on citizenship written at the time which makes Jedi's claims that much more offensive.

I use the phrase “a right based on natural law” in the sense that a “Natural Born Citizen” has the “natural right” to run for President Of The United States — providing he meets the other requirements of age etc.

Under natural law, a female is under the tuition of the father until she marries. Until then, she is a member of the society in in which her father is a member of. On the day she marries, she leaves the father & joins the society of her husband whom she is now under the protection of.

In the eyes of the law, the two become one” Justice James Wilson, 1st US Supreme Court

In natural law, no one has a quote, “RIGHT” to citizenship. They have a choice at the coming of age what society they choose to align themselves too. Until a child is of age, that child is the “subject” of the parents because it can not speak for itself. The child owes obedience to the parents & the society in which the parents are members AND the laws of nature dictate the parents owe protection to the child during until it reaches the age of reason that is set by the positive laws of the society. In America, at the time of the founding, it was 21. Sure, the child may have been considered a member of the local society in which the parents were members of, but politically, it was the child's choice to make upon emancipation form the parents. Take that which he naturally was connected to through blood or travel and find another. It is all based on the consent of the individual.

Period, end of lesson. No rights involved, it is as the Law of Nature and of Nature's God intended it to be. There is no right, but there is a choice.

26 posted on 11/05/2010 9:20:34 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
What they both fail to realize is that none of the U.S. Supreme Court cases have done anything at all to change the meaning and interpretation of Article II. They could not even if they wanted to, because it requires a Constitutional Amendment to change Article II, not a judge’s opinion or a statute from Congress.

"This is a rather bold statement. Courts have interpreted the meaning of the Constitution ever since Marbury v. Madison and will continue to do so."

============================================================

The problem is the meaning and interpretation of the "Natural Born Citizen" clause -- in Article II -- is based on Natural law.

If Natural law can be "interpreted" out of the constitution, then the constitution becomes "just a piece of parchment"... writ and un-writ, according to the ever changing whims of man.

Forget separation of church and state.

The subverter's would like to separate the constitution from Natural law; thus making our unalienable, Natural rights --bestowed by a "creator" -- alienable and subject to the State.

In short, the sovereignty -- the liberty -- of "the people" is being transfered to the State.

The State then takes the place of a "creator" that has bestowed "unalienable rights"

To the contrary, the rights the State "bestows" are alienable and can be taken away, at a moments notice, by same.

The stakes are high and our liberty hangs in the balance.

"A CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT ONCE CHANGED FROM FREEDOM, CAN NEVER BE RESTORED. LIBERTY, ONCE LOST, IS LOST FOREVER." ~JOHN ADAMS

STE=Q

27 posted on 11/05/2010 10:09:03 AM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
It is my contention that none of the attorneys working on exposing the illegal usurper known as Barack Obama have described any valid theory of law that properly explains why Obama cannot possibly qualify to be President under Article II.

Of course. That's because there exists no such valid theory. Unfortuantely, he qualifies, and no amount of wishful thinking to the contrary will change that. Now stop wasting your time and energy on this dead end, and work to defeat him at the ballot box in 2012.

28 posted on 11/05/2010 10:43:35 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

Every single word in the Constitution may be changed:

1. Judicial interpretation (establishment clause, commerce clause

2. Amendment (Amendments 1 through n)

3. Constitutional Convention (yet to occur)

There are no exceptions for “natural law” whatever that means.


29 posted on 11/05/2010 11:21:05 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: patlin
I use the phrase “a right based on natural law” in the sense that a “Natural Born Citizen” has the “natural right” to run for President Of The United States — providing he meets the other requirements of age etc.

"In natural law, no one has a quote, “RIGHT” to citizenship. They have a choice at the coming of age what society they choose to align themselves too."

============================================================

I simply defined my terms.

A "RIGHT" based on Natural law is a Natural -- intrinsic -- indelible right.

It goes without saying that a Natural RIGHT can be exercised -- or not -- at the discretion of the individual, at the coming of age.

In fact, expatriation is itself a Natural Right -- as you pointed out in post #24

I believe one has a Natural right to self defense.

Does that mean one can't "choose" to be a pacifist?

Of course not!

There is no right, but there is a choice.

There may be both a Natural right AND a choice.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

"Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the NATURAL rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind"... James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791

STE=Q

30 posted on 11/05/2010 11:39:09 AM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
There are no exceptions for “natural law” whatever that means.

Whatever that means?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?... cynical?... or did you simply forget the sarcasm tag?

STE=Q

31 posted on 11/05/2010 11:55:14 AM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
A man has a quote “natural right” under natural law to belong to “A SOCIETY” as man can not exist without it. Now naturally that would be the one he was born into through his parent's membership in that society, but ultimately it is his choice. The term “Natural” "ONLY" comes into play when the parents do not belong to another society, thus there was no foreign society that could claim the child as one of their own.

This was not the case of Obama. He clearly had a choice between 2 societies in which he was born into according to current US interpretation of the 14th. The 14th was NOT law in 1789 when A21C5 qualifications were written because at the moment of his birth to married parents, the father being British, Great Britain could claim him as one of their own if war should break out between the US & GB.

US Circuit Court, District of Columbia, 1808:
Contee v. Godfrey, 6 Fed. Cas. 361 (#3140) (U.S.C.C. D.C. 1808)
, denied that the British-born daughter of an American antenatus who had chosen the British side could claim citizenship under the statute 7 Anne c. 5 (discussed in Kettner, Am. Citizenship, 20) which in English law had extended subjectship to the foreign-born children of subjects. In this case, the parent’s choice of alienage (before the daughter’s birth) clearly affected the descendant.

32 posted on 11/05/2010 12:14:40 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: patlin
A man has a quote “natural right” under natural law to belong to “A SOCIETY” as man can not exist without it. Now naturally that would be the one he was born into through his parent's membership in that society, but ultimately it is his choice. The term “Natural” "ONLY" comes into play when the parents do not belong to another society, thus there was no foreign society that could claim the child as one of their own.

This was not the case of Obama. He clearly had a choice between 2 societies in which he was born into according to current US interpretation of the 14th. The 14th was NOT law in 1789 when A21C5 qualifications were written because at the moment of his birth to married parents, the father being British, Great Britain could claim him as one of their own if war should break out between the US & GB.

US Circuit Court, District of Columbia, 1808: Contee v. Godfrey, 6 Fed. Cas. 361 (#3140) (U.S.C.C. D.C. 1808), denied that the British-born daughter of an American antenatus who had chosen the British side could claim citizenship under the statute 7 Anne c. 5 (discussed in Kettner, Am. Citizenship, 20) which in English law had extended subjectship to the foreign-born children of subjects. In this case, the parent’s choice of alienage (before the daughter’s birth) clearly affected the descendant.

Ah so!

Very interesting.

I hope that Mr. Apuzzo will take a look at your argument.

STE=Q

33 posted on 11/05/2010 1:19:04 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: patlin

patlin,

I thought that you and I were done feuding but I see that I was mistaken.

It is some coincidence that your treatment of my position on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is so similar to that of Jedi. Like I told Jedi, it might be a good idea to read my writings before posting on the internet what my position is or is not on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Your “compliment” that I do “great work” rings so hollow and insincere given that you state falsehoods regarding my position and attack me with no basis.

You say that I have “consistenly neglected the natural right of ‘expatriation’ in [my] arguments & writings.” Here is what I wrote on my blog in August 20, 2009:

“The English common law had no concern for whether a person consented to be declared a “natural born subject.” This phenomenon was made much worse by the British not allowing any “natural born subjects” to expatriate and forcing them to be bound to the King for life through their perpetual natural allegiance. The English common law provided for perpetual natural allegiance which a subject could never renounce (once a British subject always a British subject). The English common law did not allow for a “natural born subject” to elect upon becoming of age another citizenship. English common law did not recognize a “natural born subject” as losing his or her allegiance to the King through the act of naturalizing in another country. But U.S. common law and statutes provided that an alien or U.S. citizen could expatriate and become a different citizen from that which he/she was born. For the Founders, consent was the foundation of citizenship. It was through that consent that the Founders expected U.S. citizens to give their absolute and sole allegiance to the U.S. This consent which was expressed as a transfer of allegiance to the U.S. was also critical to an alien becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. It was expatriation that allowed foreigners to come to America, naturalize, and procreate a child on U.S. soil, which allowed that child to be born with sole allegiance and loyalty to the U.S. and eligible to be President. The Founders’ knowledge of consent as the basis for citizenship and acceptance of expatriation and election of citizenship upon becoming of age, had their source in the law of nations and not in the English common law which did not involve itself with these concepts.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 20, 2009

Mario Apuzzo, ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is (August 20, 2009)
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

Here is what I wrote on May 19, 2010:

“A “natural born subject” under English common law could never renounce his or her allegiance. Mannie Brown explained the “old common-law doctrine Nemo potest exuere patriam by quoting Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case: “Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth-right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign.” Mannie Brown, Expatriation of Infants, University of Toronto Press 97 (1939). But as we have seen above, in his 1799 citizenship law Jefferson wrote that a person could exercise his “natural right of expatriating himself” “whensoever” he saw fit to do so. Jefferson included in his law a right in a person to relinquish his citizenship in a manner prescribed by law. This right was known as the right to expatriate which was not only alien to English common law but forbidden by it. Jefferson’s idea that a person could renounce allegiance to the country of his or her birth was so accepted by early Congresses and society that Congress codified this right by passing the Naturalization Act of 1795 (1 Stat. 414, c. 20), which provided persons naturalizing in the United States to absolutely renounce and abjure all allegiance to any foreign prince or state and to support the Constitution. Over the years, there continued a debate in the courts whether an American citizen could expatriate himself or herself. The matter was finally settled in 1868, when Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1868 and Representative Woodward of Pennsylvania proclaimed that by doing so Congress had driven feudalism from our shores.

Jefferson’s views on a person having a right to expatriate reveal that he looked to natural law and the law of nations and Vattel rather than the English common law on questions of citizenship. In a letter dated June 12, 1817, to Dr. John Manners, Jefferson made his views on whether the English common law applied to such questions well known:

“To Doctor John Manners.

Monticello, June 12, 1817.

SIR

Your favor of May 20th has been received some time since, but the increasing inertness of age renders me slow in obeying the calls of the writing table, and less equal than I have been to its labors.

My opinion on the right of Expatriation has been, so long ago as the year 1776, consigned to record in the act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right expressly, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The evidence of this natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of kings. If he has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode; and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for each individual, the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness. It certainly does not exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, I might safely affirm, that there is not another nation, civilized or savage, which has ever denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another which refuses its exercise. I know it is allowed in some of the most respectable countries of continental Europe, nor have I ever heard of one in which it was not. How it is among our savage neighbors, who have no law but that of Nature, we all know. . . . “ http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1817.html. We can see how Jefferson was clear in stating the right to expatriate, like the right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness, was a natural right that came from God and not from the English common law. He also explained that the English common law was adopted by the states and was applied by them on local issues. But when it came to the national government, he stated that no such law was adopted. Hence, the right to expatriate could have come only from natural law rather than the English common law. As Jefferson applied natural law to the question of expatriation, he would have also applied it to defining a “natural born Citizen.” These historical writings show that Jefferson surely would not have considered a “natural born Citizen” to have the same meaning as an English common law “natural born subject.”

All this leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the Founders and Framers did not give the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning that the English common law gave to a “natural born subject.” For further information explaining that the Framers did not rely upon English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel to define a “natural born Citizen,” see my essay entitled, ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’ as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 19, 2010

Mario Apuzzo, A U.S. Constitution Article II “natural born Citizen” Is Not the Same As an English Common Law “natural born subject”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.html

These are two examples and I do not believe it is necessary in the interest of time that I go looking for more. As you can clearly see, you are wrong in saying that I do not address the issue of expatriation in my writings.

I do not understand why people like you and Jedi have to attack me (in error no less) in a feable effort to aggrandize yourselves. Just leave me out of your posts and just make your points. You and Jedi will have more credibility (whatever is left of it) among those who really know what is going on. The both of you really do not gain any points with well-informed persons when you make unjustified attacks against me.

One would think that you and Jedi (the grader of the works of attorneys who have risked their honor and careers to bring Obama to justice) would have something good to say about the Kerchner case and me given that I am now waiting to hear from the U.S. Supreme Court if they will grant my petition for a writ of certiorari. All this by you and Jedi should lead a reasonable person to doubt your true motives and loyalties.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.


34 posted on 11/05/2010 10:25:58 PM PDT by Puzo1 (Ask the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1
I wasn't feuding, geez get a grip.

Your posts are long, loaded with information and the right of expatriation gets lost in the shuffle. Expatriation is the “key” as it does not exist in English feudal law that had only been in place a short time compared to the long history of England. It was a huge part of the civil war in England in the mid 1600’s. While you expound on Vattel, you neglect Locke & Sidney who set the sparks flying. Those most distinguished Englishmen, one executed & the other escaped into exile, had much more to do with the actual revolution & why it happened as their works focus on natural law, while Vattel focused on the Law of Nations. Locke & Sidney are the seeds that sprouted the knowledge of true natural law as it originally existed in England well before feudal law was incorporated. So, while you focus on Vattel who was oh so important as the founders were dealing with 13 sovereign nation states, you neglect English history which is key to understanding why the founders even went looking for Vattel. They read Locke and Sidney as youth, they knew of the civil war in England in the mid 1600’s & most importantly, they had been taught the heritage of their forefathers and of the days when England first began & wasn't under feudal law.

Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, signer of both the Declaration & the Constitution, 2nd only to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution...

Date: 1791

English law has its roots in Anglo-Saxon customs, which were too firmly established to be completely broken by the Norman Conquest and still form the basis of their common law today. In 1068, having at last reduced the country to submission, William set to work to establish a Roman government on a firm and lasting basis. Roman law, the legal system of ancient Rome is now the basis of civil law, one of the main European legal systems...

I know that the term citizen is often applied to one of the more numerous party—to one of the people: and I shall be obliged to take the description of a citizen from the character which he supports as one of the people. But you will easily perceive, that the same person may, at different times, act or be viewed in different characters; and though his description be taken from one of them, the account of his duties and of his rights too may, on a particular occasion, be referred to the other. This I have chosen to do, rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification. Besides, the expression is frequently employed also in the sense in which I now use it. “Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.”

A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights ; but his legislative I consider as his characteristic right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union : for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen...

You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.

35 posted on 11/06/2010 1:27:39 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: patlin

First you said, “you [meaning me] consistently have neglected the natural right of “expatriation” in your augments & writings.” I prove you wrong and you fail to admit it. In your effort to deflect attention away from your error, now you argue “[w]hile you expound on Vattel, you neglect Locke & Sidney who set the sparks flying.” You really do not give up do you.

Well, you say that my “posts are long, loaded with information and the right of expatriation gets lost in the shuffle.” I do not see how my explanation of the expatriation doctrine got lost anywhere. It is clearly written there and anyone could have read it. But you refuse to admit that you did not and rather just continue with more baseless attacks against me.

Also, you complain my posts are long and now you also complain that I did not speak about Locke and Sidney. So you wished that my post were longer if you also want me to write on those historical figures. So which way do you want it?

You speak about Justice Wilson who is very important in understanding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” You snidely (”oh so important”) attempt to undercut the importance of Vattel and rather put forward a theory that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” may be found in English history and Locke and Sidney who focused on natural law rather than Vattel who focused on the law of nations. You fail to show any connection between English history and Locke and Sidney and a “natural born Citizen.” You also fail to realize that both Jefferson and Wilson, among the many Founders and Framers, looked to Vattel as the master on explaining natural law and the law of nations which they believed had a divine origin and was therefore immutable and binding. And it was in Vattel’s Law of Nations Section 212 that he defined what a “natural born citizen” (”naturels, ou indigenes” in French which we know is equivalent to “natural born citizens” or “natives” or “indigenes” in English) is.

You also fail to realize that natural law and the law of nations existed well before English history and Locke and Sidney. The law of nations developed from jus gentium which was a Roman concept. Roman lawyers came to believe that jus gentium, since it was based on universal principles and was common among nations, was the lost law of nature. Cicero, a very famous Roman lawyer and orator, who was one of the Founders and Framers (especially Jefferson and Wilson) favorite, wrote extensively on natural law. I could go on at length on this point but it is not necessary for my purpose here.

Again, I do not know what your and Jedi’s motive is regarding why you feel compelled to prove me wrong in any way that you can. Again, I do not know who you or Jedi are and would recommend that if either of you have something that you want to share with the public or me on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” just do it without trying to prove that you know this subject better than me.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.


36 posted on 11/06/2010 12:10:58 PM PDT by Puzo1 (Ask the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1
AGAIN, I was not feuding with you, I was stating MY opinion. So, what are you now, the birther police chief who determines who can or can not have an opinion?

Me thinks you doth protest too much, especially against those on the same side of the argument. The term “natural born” appeared in English law well before Vattel & well before feudal law that arose after the Norman Conquest. The tern “natural born” was written in text books & commentaries on natural law that were embedded into the minds of the framers well before Vattel’s 1st edition of the Law of Nations in 1758. Where do you think the English originally got it from? Vattel was important because his works affirmed the century's old doctrine of the natural law nations that began with Adam & Eve.

Again, Vattel was important because his works are on the laws of nations according to natural law. At the declaration, each state became a quote “sovereign NATION state”, each with the right to make their own laws, including those of citizenship as at that time there was NO federal citizenship. The states determined immigration based on the needs of their own sovereign state & thus Vattel was brought in. His works were the epitome of the subject, even by Brits who cited Vattel in their records of “The House of Commons”, British Parliament, especially during the wars they. Vattel took natural law, written by many earlier philosophers on the subject and brought it together in one neat little set of works that also included the law of nations. This had never been done before. AND if you actually go to Congressional records, you will find that Pufenfdorf, Locke & Grotius are more widely used when speaking of natural rights of citizens and who those citizens are.

John Adams:

A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern Englishmen, to mention in their company, the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke...You and I, my dear friend, have been sent into fife, at a lime when the greatest lawgivers of antiquity would have wished to have lived. How few of the human race have ever enjoyed an opportunity of making an election of government more than of air, soil or climate, for themselves or their children.

37 posted on 11/06/2010 8:06:03 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: patlin

You can have all the opinions you want. Just don’t make them at my expense.


38 posted on 11/06/2010 8:55:47 PM PDT by Puzo1 (Ask the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q; bushpilot1; Red Steel; edge919; little jeremiah; rxsid; STARWISE
The international law and custom of ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1 By Coleman Phillipson (1911)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zb0yAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA264&dq=Rome,+natural+born&hl=en&ei=JhnWTPbyEpGonQe1koHBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The international law and custom of ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1 By Coleman Phillipson-A

The international law and custom of ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1 By Coleman Phillipson-B

The international law and custom of ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1 By Coleman Phillipson-C

39 posted on 11/06/2010 9:05:50 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1
You need to get over yourself & your self imperialistic attitude that no one has a right to any other opinion than that of which you write...

FYI...If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

40 posted on 11/06/2010 9:13:11 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: patlin

Don’t try to change the nature of the issue. It’s about you making statements against me which I have proven to you are baseless. It’s not about you expressing an opinion. So don’t try to wrap yourself around some 1st Amendment free speech mantle to try to escape your errors and try to make yourself some victim.


41 posted on 11/06/2010 10:04:33 PM PDT by Puzo1 (Ask the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: patlin; Puzo1; All
AGAIN, I was not feuding with you, I was stating MY opinion. So, what are you now, the birther police chief who determines who can or can not have an opinion?

Let me say right away that Mr. Apuzzo has good reason to be a little "sensitive" after what Jedi Pauly wrote.

Now, I'm the kind of guy that doesn't have a problem separating the wheat from the chaff.

I think there were many good ideas in Pauly's article.

Unfortunately, it could have been a far better article without him trying to denigrate those on the front line of battle -- such as, Mr. Apuzzo.

Again, bringing up Mr. Apuzzo (and the other "birther" lawyers)detracted -- unfortunately, I think -- from some of the good points that he made.

In retrospect, I wonder if I did good by posting the article at all.

I certainly did not intend to be part of demeaning Mr. Apuzzo: who has demonstrated, even with just a few posts on this forum, a wonderful grasp of the constitution and the history of our republic.

There is a way to criticize in a constructive and tactful way.

There is a way to disagree, without being disagreeable.

I do not know what Mr. Apuzzo has done to be treated in such a dismissive and disrespectful manner -- and I don't like it!

As I said, Mr. Apuzzo is on the front line of battle here.

There are also thousands of us behind the scenes.

But whether we are at the front, or at the back of the battle, we are ALL on the same team... thus we should be heartening, not disparaging, Mr. Apuzzo.

Again, Mr. Apuzzo has good reason to be a little sensitive after what Jedi Pauly -- unnecessarily in my opinion -- wrote.

In fact, I think he has shown a commendable restraint.

STE=Q

42 posted on 11/06/2010 10:44:52 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: patlin; Puzo1; All

Keep in mind that infighting among ourselves gives comfort to the enemy.

Let’s focus on how we can get the usurper out of the White House before he destroys what’s left of our republic.

Any way, I’m tired and need to hit the sack.

Good night all!

STE=Q


43 posted on 11/06/2010 11:44:17 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1
The entire crux of this NBC issue is "jus soli" citizenship & the "Right of Expatriation". They are wholly incompatible. It is THAT SIMPLE, when the US adopted the ancient common law that every man, being born free, retains the right of expatriation, they in that on proclamation, renounced any form of feudal law of "jus soli" citizenship that existed in America. Vattel didn't invent this concept and it was NOT his works alone that define it as Wilson stated:

English law has its roots in Anglo-Saxon customs, which were too firmly established to be completely broken by the Norman Conquest and still form the basis of their common law today. In 1068, having at last reduced the country to submission, William set to work to establish a Roman government on a firm and lasting basis. Roman law, the legal system of ancient Rome is now the basis of civil law, one of the main European legal systems...You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.

In ancient time, England & Germany were one. Now fast forward to 1868: US State Dept & US House documents, otherwise publ. as Executive documents...By United States Congress House

Saxon citizrnship 1868

PERIOD! END OF ARGUMENT! You make things so complicated, you can't even keep it straight sometimes.

44 posted on 11/06/2010 11:45:37 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
I'm not in-fighting, I merely stated my opinion in which Mario took notice of to give me a tongue lashing that was out of order.

I really have a hard time with lawyers who think they, and only they know it all. Especially when they refuse to even learn the heritage of our founders. The heritage in which our entire system & laws are based upon as well as many nations of the world, including Vattel’s.

Vattel is VERY important, but he is a mere spec in the pages of philosophers, legal treatises & MANY BOOKS ON ENGLISH HISTORY including that of the SAXONS that are recorded in the journals of the Continental Congress, Constitutional Convention as well as the US Congress.

45 posted on 11/06/2010 11:57:26 PM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1

Mr. Apuzzo: You should not waste your time debating Patlin and her DoppelGanger user ids which seem to magically follow her around the internet seconding anything she says. She seems to enjoy building herself and her annoited ones up at the expense of pushing others down and putting others down. She does it repeatedly. I have heard she is Leo Donofrio’s sister. Not sure about that. I have also heard she is a lawyer but not a practicing one. Not sure about that either. But what I do know from observing her in this site is that she likes to crow a lot about her alleged contributions at the expense of putting down the contributions of others. She likes to talk the talk but not walk the walk. She wants credit all the time but gives none herself to other major contributors and battlers in the legal arena such as you Mr. Apuzzo. If she was so knowledgeable about the issues why has she not retained a lawyer, if not one herself, such as her much admired Leo Donofrio or someone else to take her case, in the last year and filed her own case against Obama to help defend the constitution instead of bragging in a blog about how much she has done all the while tearing down the work of others who are actively fighting in the court system to save the republic. Probably Leo Donofrio would not take a case from her anyway even if she asked since he too likely knows that she is all talk on a blog and no walk the walk in real life.


46 posted on 11/07/2010 4:09:38 AM PST by ramjet767
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ramjet767

Talk about living in an imaginary world! Now that’s funny! I have never hidden who I am...

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/


47 posted on 11/07/2010 9:21:32 AM PST by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ramjet767; Puzo1; STARWISE; cripplecreek; stockpirate; LucyT; pissant; traditional1; ...

PING!!!

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

Jed Pauly says:

Monday, November 8, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Dear readers;

“Apparently I have made a mistake of mistaken identity. I had been corresponding with a ‘Doctor Conspiracy’ who I had believed was Mario Apuzzo. Due to this mistaken identity error on my part, I misstated Mario Apuzzo’s position and included him in my Article and I should not have included him. Apparently Mario and I are on the same page now and he seems to be saying essentially the same things that I am saying. I apologize for this confusion and I have asked Sharon to edit my Article to remove any reference to Mario Apuzzo.”

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/04/the-true-meaning-and-interpretation-of-article-ii-natural-born-citizen/

STE=Q


48 posted on 11/08/2010 7:05:23 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

WOAH! Yea, I can confirm that for you! Dr. Conspiracy and M. Apuzzo are NOT the same person. Not by half.

Dr. Con isn’t even familiar with the writings of Ben Franklin and G. Washington and the other founders who concluded that none but a Natural Born Citizen, someone of Undivided loyalties could singularly command the armies.

In fact, I have to go through my link lists and get his some of the letters that I and others have found. I think they are all listed here in various posts... I just have not had time to get that done. I should send him a letter and tell him I am not going to have time until after Thanksgiving. I have a final and a course project to do in the next two weeks and I have 14 at least coming for dinner on Thanksgiving I have to plan for and get ready.... And I have a wicked cold I don’t have time to lay in bed with. My kids are happy tho, I have lost my voice..... >.<

Anyone want to do me a huge favor and post up some links??


49 posted on 11/08/2010 7:35:47 PM PST by Danae (Anail nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Puzo1

Dear Mr. Apuzzo,

First THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK AND RESEARCH! We owe you a debt that cannot be paid. Thank you!

This being said, there are certain ... persons here who deliberately engage in obfuscation. Their purpose is to confuse and to mislead. My experience is that you cannot win against them because like sponges and brick walls, they are incapable of being anything other than the mentally squishy yet hard headed paid mules they are.

It is their job to engage in these nay-saying tactics. They aren’t interested in being correct, they are interested in throwing just enough truth around to sound credible and confuse people. Trust me I have been burned by such as these more than once (NO ONE MENTIONS POLARIK OK GUYS!!!?).

The best we can do is to clearly state our case using the fewest words possible with the fewest number of syllables. Bullet points and numbering comments does seem to irritate them for some reason....

I have followed your work for a long time now, and I am sincere in saying, you give me hope for the future! Don’t let the birther-lice get to you. They have a vested interest in your failure. The rest of America has a vested interest in your success!

God speed to you... nd from your filings to God’s eyes, keep up the fantastic work you have been doing!


50 posted on 11/08/2010 7:47:36 PM PST by Danae (Anail nathrach, orth' bhais's bethad, do chel denmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 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