Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
scribd ^ | 10/29/09 | Judge Carter

Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry

Judge Carter Ruling on MTD


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; birthers; carter; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; nbc; obama; obamaisfafraud; obamathugs; orly; orlytaitz; romney4obama; romneyantigop; romneybotshere; romneybotsvsbirthers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-670 last
To: MN Doc

Though there is no reason whatsoever to believe that BHO isn’t a US citizen at all.


651 posted on 11/01/2009 12:37:51 PM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
The case includes the fact that he has admitted that he was a British Subject at birth. He cannot be a natural born citizen.

I am not a lawyer, but that appears to be a matter of some dispute. That statement appears to depend on whether the Founding Fathers depended on Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns, as the source of their thinking. That document was written in French by a Swiss philosopher, and was not part of English common law. It has been cited frequently as part of the "just war" doctrine, but, AFAIK, has never been used as a precedent for a US Supreme Court decision. It was cited in the dissent in the case of The United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in 1898. The majority decision cited English common law as stating that, "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject," and held that to be the controlling precedent for US common law.

There is also the obvious precedent of Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President. There is some similarity to Obama's situation, since there was a dispute at the time of his election to the Vice-Presidency regarding his place of birth. There were rumors that he had actually been born in Ireland or Canada rather than in Fairfield, Vermont. The fact that his father was a British subject from Northern Ireland, and not naturalized as a US citizen until 1843, was undisputed and did not appear to be an issue to the electorate of the time.

652 posted on 11/01/2009 1:01:58 PM PST by MN Doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Though there is no reason whatsoever to believe that BHO isn’t a US citizen at all.
There actually is some dispute about whether Obama was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, in Hawaii or when he lived in Indonesia from 1967-71. Some say that would negate his American citizenship, although clearly the United States has treated him as a US citizen ever since.
653 posted on 11/01/2009 1:27:57 PM PST by MN Doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: MN Doc

They’d be wrong.

US citizenship is hard to lose. A parent cannot renounce it for the child in any way for any reason.

If has to be renounced by the individual themselves after they have attained legal age.

The US treats him as a citizen because he is a citizen.

Check out: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if

(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

(4)

(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or

(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or

(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.


654 posted on 11/01/2009 1:58:07 PM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: MN Doc

“Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained years earlier that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

Chester Artur hid his birthplace and parents citizenship from the electorate. He was a fraud like Obama.


655 posted on 11/01/2009 3:23:10 PM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

MN Doc is another Obama Shill. Joined Nov 08. Cuts and pastes same posts as MLO.


656 posted on 11/01/2009 3:25:18 PM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
Chester Artur hid his birthplace and parents citizenship from the electorate.
As I understand it, there was active "opposition research" by the Democrats against Arthur with respect to his birthplace, but his father's citizenship was well-known, (as the source for the questions about the candidate's birthplace,) and that that was not an issue for the electorate. Is there a reference somewhere that William Arthur's birthplace or citizenship was hidden? Or that Arthur's eligibility was challenged based on his father's citizenship? Thanks.
657 posted on 11/01/2009 4:06:12 PM PST by MN Doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: MN Doc

“MYTH #1: Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.

This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President. Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins. This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.

Chester’s father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December 2008.” http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/the-holy-grail-of-potus-eligibility-law-review-articles-mr-obama-and-mr-arthur-meet-attorney-george-collins/

“The evidence comes from the August 23, 1894, issue of The Nation magazine which states:

In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ “.

Here we have an official US State Department ruling from 1885 that people born in the US of foreign parentage are subject to foreign powers and not considered US citizens.

This provides proof positive Bayard had no idea whatsoever that, at the time of President Arthur’s birth, father William was not a US citizen.

It’s important we note Bayard’s concern that the German subject was, “on his birth subject to a foreign power“. That’s the key. “On his birth”, Chester Arthur was born subject to a foreign power. “On his birth”, Barack Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Also, this official ruling concerned only the issue of whether the person was a “citizen” of the US, never mind “natural born”.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen. The word “born” refers to the status of the President at the time of his birth, not any other time. Barack Obama and Chester Arthur were born to fathers who were not US citizens at the time each was born. Therefore, neither Obama nor Arthur should legally be President under the Constitution.

The Nation article appears below in full for your review.”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/us-government-ruling-from-1885-by-secretary-of-state-thomas-bayard-proves-chester-arthurs-british-birth-was-kept-from-public/

PLease post any evidence you have that the electorate knew that Chester Arthurs fathe was British Subject at the time of Chesters birth.


658 posted on 11/01/2009 7:27:29 PM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary; BP2; Beckwith; El Gato; Kenny Bunk; mojitojoe
MN Doc and El Sordo are playing a little game of 'deceive the readers with a faux discussion of pre-planned points and counterpoints.;

The red herring of because Barry was legally adopted, his Indonesian citizenship calls into question his natural born citizenship, 'because he was adopted by an Indonesian and thus is an Indonesian citizen' is being played for pretend significance, to draw attention away from the actual significance of his adoption.

The issue is not whether he is still an Indonesian citizen through Lolo, by adoption, because he is also still a British subject through his biological father. The real issue is whether the lying affirmative action fraud used his Indonesian or Kenayn citizenship to obtain a passport or college entry or college tuition assistance AFTER becoming an adult, AND whether being born a dual citizen eliminates being a natural born citizen of the United States since his asserted father was a Kenyan/Brit at Barry 's time of birth.

The bait and switch misdirection is a technique well worn in the used car business but it is a shame that FR now protects such deception.

659 posted on 11/04/2009 6:34:56 AM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; plenipotentiary; BP2; Beckwith; El Gato; Kenny Bunk; mojitojoe
MN Doc and El Sordo are playing a little game of 'deceive the readers with a faux discussion of pre-planned points and counterpoints.

You know, MHG, that one must really sit back and admire the professional thoroughness of this campaign of duplicity.

Strategy, baby! Run the PR campaign of disinformation. Encourage the poor rubes to go to the wrong court with their inept or worse lawyers to take on really good lawyers, with unlimited resources, working for an evil cause.

Result? The issue of "native born vs NATURAL BORN is now thoroughly conflated and the wily rabbits of Team Obama are again attempting to lead the hounds into the thickets of the "Indonesian Jungle." Guess what? Nothing in there, but do keep sniffing around past 2012.

Plaintiff's attorneys attemped the legal equivalent of mixing an order of a lb. of apples and a dozen oranges in a hardware store. Guess what? Hardware stores don't stock fruit. The hardware store can sell you a screw. Surprise, surprise; that's what they got.

Please don't try to blame this on the judge. IMHO, the worst that can be said of him is that he ran out of patience with the pleadings before him, which resembled a dog's breakfast. Yes, he kicked'em when they were going down anyway, and when he really didn't have to. Boo-frickin'-hoo.

The BC issue will be settled one way or the other in Hawaii. The NBC issue will be settled in DC.

*Meanwhile, Lawyer (aptly named) Kreep,actually believes that if BHO,Jr. were born in Hawaii, he would be a "Natural Born Citizen." see naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

660 posted on 11/04/2009 8:02:58 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (George Washington was a former British Subject. Just like Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Didn’t you know that British Subject/US Citizens alive at the time of Independence were given a special constitutional pass so the NBC rule didn’t apply to them? I suggest you change your tag, it just advertises your lack of knowledge on this.


661 posted on 11/04/2009 11:30:40 AM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Didn’t you know that British Subject/US Citizens alive at the time of Independence were given a special constitutional pass so the NBC rule didn’t apply to them? I suggest you change your tag, it just advertises your lack of knowledge on this.


662 posted on 11/04/2009 11:30:46 AM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
Didn’t you know that British Subject/US Citizens alive at the time of Independence were given a special constitutional pass so the NBC rule didn’t apply to them?

Yes. By now we all know the founders were not "Natural Born Citizens." They "grandfathered" themselves (and their sons) in as Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.

But, the Declaration of Independence pre-dates the Constitution by 13 years. The Constitution says "....at the time of ratification....," which was 1788. So, your real question is, "Did Americans stop being British Subjects on July 4th 1775?" What about Tories? Was a kid born on July 5th 1775 in Philadelphia to two natives of that city already a "Natural Born Citizen?"

I suggest you change your tag, it just advertises your lack of knowledge on this.

How so? Or do you think our putative POTUS might still be a British Subject, or Kenyan Citizen? (I think that technically, he is perhaps still a Dual Citizen, rather than a "former British Subject") In regard to GW, at what point do you think he stopped being a British Subject in rebellion, and became an American Citizen?

663 posted on 11/05/2009 6:04:23 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (George Washington was a former British Subject. Just like Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

At the time of Independence each State would have had its own Constitution. As to eligibility to be US President, the office did not exist till the US Constitution was adopted, so the US President NBC requirement wasn’t needed.

Your tag implies that the circumstances of Wasington and Obama re NBC were the same, which is very misleading.


664 posted on 11/05/2009 6:41:59 AM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

At the time of Independence each State would have had its own Constitution. As to eligibility to be US President, the office did not exist till the US Constitution was adopted, so the US President NBC requirement wasn’t needed.

Your tag implies that the circumstances of Wasington and Obama re NBC were the same, which is very misleading.


665 posted on 11/05/2009 6:42:06 AM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
....the office did not exist till the US Constitution was adopted,...

there was a Presidency under the Articles of Confederation, but I have never seen any qualifications for the post.

At birth, GW was the son of two American subjects of the crown. At his birth, Obama was the son (he says) of an American citizen and a British Subject. Neither man was, of course, a "Natural Born Citizen." In writing themselves and their sons an exemption, the founders at least had the courtesy to mention it.

666 posted on 11/05/2009 7:20:03 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (No matter where his birth took place, BHO, Jr. cannot be a "Natural Born Citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

The President of the Confederation Congress (according to Wikipedia) was a member of that Congress, not an Executive President as currently. But having said that I think we agree, and I appologise for the tone of my first post. I am very sensitive to the presence of Obamatons at the moment. I do prefer your current tag. Regards. Mark


667 posted on 11/05/2009 1:18:28 PM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

It works better then sending Taitz money which is akin to flushing it. We have to win elections. There is no other legitimate way.


668 posted on 11/08/2009 4:51:47 PM PST by nyconse (When you buy something, make an investment in your country. Buy American or bye bye America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Metropolitian Transit District??


669 posted on 11/08/2009 4:53:34 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

Motion to Dismiss.

Catching up on old Posts?


670 posted on 11/08/2009 6:04:44 PM PST by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-670 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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