Posted on 09/16/2011 5:56:50 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona has constituted a special law enforcement posse to investigate allegations brought by members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party that the birth certificate Barack Obama released to the public April 27 might be a forgery, WND has learned.
The posse, under the authority of Arpaio's office, will consist of two former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys, headed by Michael Zullo, a retired police detective originally from Bergen County, N.J.
WND confirmed with Zullo and with Arpaio's office that the investigation into the Obama birth certificate has been sanctioned fully by Arpaio's office. The investigation, they said, will be conducted with "utmost diligence," and the investigators will be authorized to utilize subpoena power.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Some of the paragraphs immediately preceding your quote:
*364 “The doctrine is transmitted to us from the laws of Rome. (Justinian, Inst. lib. ii, tit. i, s. 20-24; Dig. lib. xii, tit. i, l. 7. See J. Voet ad Pandect. tom. i, p. 606, 607. Heinec. Recit. lib. ii, tit. 2, s. 358-369; Struvii Syntag. ex. 41, c. 33-25; Bowyers’s Civil Law, ch. 14.)
“Don Alfonso transferred it from the civil law to the Partidas. (Partida iii, tit. 28, l. 31.) Thus it came to be, as it still remains, an established element of the laws of Spain and of Mexico. (Alvarez, Instituciones, lib. ii, tit. i, s. 6; Asso, Instituciones, p. 101; Gomez de la Serna, Elementos, lib. ii, tit. 4, sec 3, no. 2; Escriche, Dic. s. vocc. accession natural, alluvion, avulsion; Febrero Mexicano, tom. 1, p. 161; Sala Mexicano, ed. 1845, tom. ii, p. 62.)
“The same doctrine, starting from the same point of departure, made its way through the channel of Bracton, into the laws of England, and thence to the United States. (Bracton de Legg. Angliae, lib. 2, cap. 2, fol. 9; Blacks. Comm. vol. ii, p. 262; Woolrych on Waters, p. 34; Angell on Water Courses, ch. 2; Lynch v. Allen, 4 De. & Bat. N.C.R. p. 62; Murry v. Sermon, 1 Hawks, N.C.R. p. 56; The King v. Lord Scarborough, 3 B. & C. p. 91; S.C. 2 Bligh, N.S. p. 147.
“Such, beyond all possible controversy, is the public law of modern Europe and America, and such, also, is the municipal law both of the Mexican Republic and the United States.”
Yes, cases will review the law of nations, and ONE of the sources for that is Vattel. But then, this case has NOTHING TO DO WITH CITIZENSHIP.
US law ignores Vattel on matters of US citizenship, since we do NOT REQUIRE PARENTS TO BE CITIZENS.
Damn, but you are stupid!
From Volant:
“This power results from the ownership of the soil, from the legislative jurisdiction of the State over it, and from its duty to preserve unimpaired those public uses for which the soil is held. Vattel, b. 1, c. 20, s. 246; Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. R. 376. It has been exercised by many of the States. See Angell on Tide Waters, 145, 156, 170, 192-3. “
Once again, the court is looking at multiple sources of international law, and once again, their use of Vattel has NOTHING TO DO WITH CITIZENSHIP.
“Pls tell us Mr Rogers why is the Supreme Court citing Vattel in Virginia v Tennessee if Vattel’s Law of Nations is limited to Swiss law?”
Again, if you were capable of reading, I said Vattel followed Swiss law regarding citizenship, and that the USA has never followed him on defining what makes a US citizen a citizen.
If we followed Vattel, only those born of citizen parents would be citizens. That has never been true. All free men born in the US, under US control, are citizens. That has always been true, and WKA merely recognized long practice.
But we have exchanged posts for a year, and you have never been able to show that Vattel controls US citizenship. You STILL do not understand that Vattel is one writer among many who are used for reference in international law - the ‘law of nations’.
I’m sorry you are stupid. I cannot fix it.
“And when exactly did Roberts rule on Obama’s eligibility? “
The US Supreme Court was offered a case before Obama took office. They were not interested. Why should they be? They already answered the question to the satisfaction of all 50 states, every court & every member of Congress in the 1890s...
They have declined every opportunity since, as well. Golly, maybe there is a reason?
I know, I know - they are part of the conspiracy. Roberts is actually a Chinese plant, brainwashed to do the bidding of Soros. Only the freedom fighters linked in with WorldNutDaily know the truth! Wolverines, unite!
I was wondering why he declined the public funds.
My guess is if he tries to run again, he'll do the same thing.
Yet another non-answer from the man who cuts and pastes for a living... evidently.
I'll add just a little petition as I join you in your very discerning prayer: 2)Raise up people with the courage and means to not only expose Obama, but the courage and means to do something about it--to prosecute, remove from office, and undo all the harmful and corrupt actions that Obama and his minions have perpetrated on America. In Jesus name....Amen
I'll add just a little petition as I join you in your very discerning prayer: 2)Raise up people with the courage and means to not only expose Obama, but the courage and means to do something about it--to prosecute, remove from office, and undo all the harmful and corrupt actions that Obama and his minions have perpetrated on America. In Jesus name....Amen
It appears to me that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219, and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject.
...still his national character was derivative from his parents, and was under the peculiar circumstances of this case, liable to be changed during the Revolutionary War, and that if his parents reverted to their original character as British subjects and adhered to the British Crown, his allegiance was finally fixed with theirs by the treaty of peace.
Lets not get stressed...numerous time you posted dissent quotes.
When the Fuller quote is posted... Vattel and Natural born citizens are born to citizen parents.. you have a sissy fit....and bellow “Dissent”
The point is Fuller understood Vattel to say natural born citizens are born to citizen parents. It does not matter if it is in the dissent.
We assumed you pilot types maintained their bearing.
“I’ll wait for a statement from the Sheriff. Corsi’s last story on the subject was full of factual errors.”
I did not find it at the MCSO website, but there’s in some press reports of an official statement from the Sheriff:
“Last Thursday in my office I met with a Tea Party group who presented me with 242 signatures from Maricopa County citizens asking me to consider launching an investigation into whether President Obama’s official birth certificate, presented on the White House website, is authentic or a forgery.
“Their concern is that if the document is a forgery, as they claim many ‘experts’ suspect, the President’s name cannot be placed on the 2012 election ballot in Arizona.
“What I have agreed to do, contrary to some publish media reports, is simply look at the evidence these people have assembled and examine whether it is within my jurisdiction to investigate the document’s authenticity.
“I indicated in this meeting that I will also consider whether there is a more appropriate Arizona agency to determine the document’s veracity and ultimately whether the President’s name can lawfully be entered onto the 2012 election ballot.”
I’ve lost count many times have the birthers fallen for this kind of thing. They never learn.
“And when exactly did Roberts rule on Obama’s eligibility?”
See that picture cynwoody posted? That’s John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, (re)swearing in Barack Obama as President of the United States. After the swearing(s) in, Roberts said, “Congratulations (again) Mr. President.
Roberts has also sworn-in and welcomed two of Obama’s nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. His Court has denied / dismissed many birther petitions and applications, and in no case did even one justice require a response from the defense.
Here’s the deal, HMS Surprise: If you refuse to take a clue from anything less than a Supreme Court case ruling specifically on Obama’s eligibility, then Obama remains President and you remain clueless. That seems fine with Obama. Does it work for you?
John Roberts will never “get the chance”. Once “Obama” got his party’s nomination, everything that has followed has been a foregone conclusion. The fix is, and has been, in since that point. Mr. “Obama” or whatever his real name is, will not be forced from office over eligibility issues or over anything else for that matter. As “The First Non White Male President”, he is untouchable for any reason whatsoever. This villain could barbecue an aborted fetus on the front lawn of the White House and still get a pass. I firmly believe that justice Roberts flubbed the public Oath of Office because he choked on it (the ceremony), knowing full well that a travesty was occurring, and was nevertheless helpless to prevent such, in the face of the public opinion current he faced. More’s the pity.
Of course, those that throw out garbage arguments that have the effect of buttressing his ability to illegally retain office, rather than ones that point up the utter dishonesty surrounding virtually every aspect of this fraud’s life narrative, including obfuscation of what the framers understood to be a starkly simple matter (Natural Born being that the aspirant be the progeny of US Citizens and therefore having no divided loyalties) are as culpable in the fraud as the scumbags who proffered this fugazzi for consideration in the first place. Hope you’re proud of yourselves, my “fellow Americans”.
You are an idiot.
It's on their press release page (8/19/2011).
He specifically calls out WND for shoddy reporting of the event and even puts "experts" in quotation marks.
So you can see why I'm skeptical about Corsi's latest story on Sheriff Joe.
During the civil war (Revolution against Britain), the disputed territories had mixed citizenship. This was an exceptional situation, where people living side by side could be citizens of different countries.
That differed from the norm, where in both Great Britain & the USA, birth determined citizenship. There is no doubt that someone born in Britain, even if there temporarily, was a natural born subject. In like manner, someone born in the USA, even if their parents were there temporarily (but legally), is a natural born citizen.
The intent and desire of the parents applies when you have territory in dispute during civil war. But there is a long body of legal decisions backing the idea that anyone born in the USA is a natural born citizen. WKA reviewed dozens of cases that decided that.
What birthers have been unable to find is a single case where it was ruled that a free person born in the USA needed naturalization. There is not a single case where the courts ruled a free person born in the USA was not a citizen by birth, apart from the disputed territories during the Revolutionary War.
Children who are dual citizens have the right to choose which country they will be citizens of. They are assumed to follow their parents until they are old enough to decide for themselves. Thus Elg, after living for years in Sweden as a Swedish citizen (following her parents) was ruled a natural born citizen of the US by birth, choosing to follow it when she was 18:
“But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
That press release addresses a WND account of what happened after the original Aug. 17 meeting with the Tea Party. But it does not address the article Corsi wrote on Sept 16.
This is the latest statement-
WND confirmed with Zullo and with Arpaio’s office that the investigation into the Obama birth certificate has been sanctioned fully by Arpaio’s office. The investigation, they said, will be conducted with “utmost diligence,” and the investigators will be authorized to utilize subpoena power.
Arpaio spokesman Lt. Justin Griffin told WND that Arpaio’s posse will consist entirely of volunteers and will avoid incurring any cost to the taxpayers of Maricopa County.
“I am very grateful that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a sincere man of his word and a fearless, patriotic American,” Brian Reilly, a spokesman for the Surprise Tea Party, told WND.
Yes, I know. He hasn't commented on Corsi's latest story. What I'm saying is that Corsi's last story, where he said the Sheriff had already launched an investigation, was said to be inaccurate on the Sheriff department's website.
Post that again on this forum and we’ll ban you.
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.