Posted on 10/25/2011 11:49:30 PM PDT by Danae
Thank you!
And standing to bring the case ?
Sarah Herlihy
Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Neither Justia nor its employees are "a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing," so 10 U.S.C. 1018 does not apply.
“Full text of case”
All that shows is that they made a false statement. It is simply not a violation of 10 U.S.C. 1018 for a private entity, acting in a private capacity to make a false statement. 10 U.S.C. 1018 only applies to "a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing."
I'm trying to understand why you believe what you've posted. Your position isn't very strong if you have to remove parts in order to satisfy your viewpoint. That IS the epitome of being "overinvested." I've explained why there's a legal precedent expressed in Minor and you're trying remove the parts of the syllabus that agree with me. That's not a matter of ME being the one who is overinvested.
One thing we do agree on, if the current eligibility issue gets before the USSC (and it probably will will not absent impeachment proceedings) the court will likely cite Minor with favor.
The courts are hiding behind legal standing to avoid this issue. This isn't about having them simply cite Minor with favor. My point is that there is a clear precedent and it would require extraordinary legal gymnastics to deny that precedent. We've seen a lower court in Indiana do several of these gymnastics, but they weren't presented with the specific case as I've detailed it.
...Justia.com is authorized – according to the federal Public Domain laws – to re-publish US Supreme Court opinions.....
What cases are annotated under 10 USC 1018?
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/
Boy was that a “its not fair” sort of rant. Interesting citation there for sure!!
Lol
What is a certificate. Give me a definition.
Honestly I don’t know. Would have to come from a DA right? With this justice department? Yeahhh.
Just because something is in the public domain does not mean that anyone who publishes it is "authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing." Your reading of 18 U.S.C. 1018 (apologies for misquoting the citation - the mistake was in Donofrio's original) would mean that anyone who falsely quoted any document in the public domain would be in violation of Federal law. That is simply not the case. By it's very title, 18 U.S.C. 1018 is intended to cover "Official certificates or writings" - a private entity re-publishing public domain writings, including Supreme Court decisions, is not making "official certificates or writings."
The point is not whether it’s a certificate, it is whether Justia is a “public officer” or an “other person authorized by any law of the United States” to make or give a certificate/writing. Justia is neither.
How aboutconspiracy to defraud the government, 18 USC 371
Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of “defraud” provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:
The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.
Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:
To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00923.htm
Gimmy the definition.
The definition is irrelevant. The law does not prohibit any and all false “certifications,” it prohibits false certifications made by public officials or people authorized by law to make such a certification. If you can’t prove that Justia is a public official or is authorized by law to make a certification/writing, you can’t prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1018.
This is exceptionally well put. If I may ask, what is your take on Ex Parte Lockwood and Luria v. US? Between those two and WKA we do have a very solid legal argument for the precise definition of NBC. But I am no lawyer.
Thank you!
~D
Thanks.
I just got back and was going to post the following.
I am on a new computer and don’t have my html editor up yet but here’s my link:
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/12/was-sarah-herlihy-plant.html
Why Was Sarah Herlihy Worrying About Article II?
Contrairimairi has forwarded a post from Insight Analytical concerning Sarah Herlihy’s article that was also discussed in the blog Count us Out. Someone had forwarded Herlihy’s article to me and I blogged it on November 29. Herlihy works for the law firm of Kirkland and Ellis out of their Chicago office. The kicker is that Herlihy’s article was published in the Kent Law review in 2006 and, notes Count us Out Blogger Creative Ogre:
“While digging my way through the Internet last night, I came across the following paper, written by SARAH P. HERLIHY. It’s title: AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE caught my eye, and had to read it…
“I had to ask myself, what would drive any American to want to change a clause in a document that is the very foundation of our government? So, I kept digging, and found that SARAH P. HERLIHY is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP
“Noting that this law firm is based in Chicago, the light bulb was shining a little brighter . Upon looking at the firm, and the partners, I found that Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., is Member of finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.
“In addition, Jack S. Levin, P.C., another partner who, in December 2002 was presented the ” Illinois Venture Capital As sociation’s lifetime achievement award for service to the private equity/venture capital community” presented by Sen. Barack Obama
“So it sure looks like Obama’s people have looked into the matter of “Natural born” as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of “If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!”
Here is the introduction to the paper… It looks like a road map for Obama’s defense lawyers…And a precursor to a Socialist world.”
In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since ...
The underlined parts kill the Obot arguments. This acknowledges the criteria of NBC and says that women under that definition are as much citizens since the adoption of the 14th amendment as before. IOW, the 14th amendment did NOT define their citizenship, nor would it for any NBC.
In the WKA decision, Fuller quotes the Vattel definition of NBC, so obviously he's going to uphold Minor's definition, plus he says in that dissent that the doubts that Minor expressed were resolved in Elk v. Wilkins, meaning the children of aliens couldn't be citizens under the 14th amendment since no one could be who owed allegiance to a foreign power.
Luria seems to confuse the issue somewhat by using the term "native" instead of "natural-born" ... however by citing Minor, the definition of native = NBC, in that BOTH are defined by being born in the country to citizen parents. These rulings do add an extra level of consistency to the NBC definition .. but I'm no lawyer either. But you shouldn't have to be a lawyer when the language is so clear.
Oh I KNEW I liked you for a reason! Nice place ya got there!!
;-)
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.