54 Comments »

• Phil says:

  March 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm

  Pete,

  Did the 14th Amendment have language changing the original Constitutional requirement for POTUS?

  Let’s take a look at the relevant Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

  Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  For me, simply on the face of it, I see nothing that states anything about eligibility issues. Rather, I simply see a re-affirmation of rights of citizens by virtue of their being a citizen of the US. Therefore, simply based on the wording of this Section, I see absolutely nothing that changes the meaning or content of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

  Why did the DNC and Obama deliberately seal records, and fight vigorously to keep records sealed, if Obama is indeed legally qualified to be POTUS?

  Going back to what was arguably the original suit in all of this, Berg v. Obama (at the federal Court in Philly with Judge Surrick), the fact that the DNC fought against questioning the nominee (at the time) on the grounds of essentially saying, “of course he’s an American citizen” is what made me think there was something to the eligibility issue, if for no other reason than there is absolutely no legal enforcement of eligibility at this time (and if Mr. Obama is a constitutional lawyer, then I can safely assume that he has every reason to know this).

  Truly, I continue to enjoy your website.

  Thanks for the kind words. It’s no site without readers, and as much as I disagree with them, I’m overjoyed that adversaries to my viewpoints quite frequently view this site and comment. I also Tweet on Twitter at “Phil_GA”.

  When the system can be twisted to deny the public basic access to eligibility information for a POTUS, do we have a government of, by, and for the people? In your opinion, what form government do we actually live under now?

  Always remember that the system, per se, is not what is “bad” or “evil;” it is what it is. It is the people currently holding various official titles that are at fault for those things that are perpetuating “bad” or “evil” behaviors from within. Therefore, while we continue to have a constitutional republic, we, the People, must be much more vigilant in holding those who govern us accountable.

  -Phil
• Pete says:

  March 22, 2009 at 4:05 pm

  Phil,

  I seem to see the same arguments back and forth regarding Obama and Natural Born. The legal opinions of the Obots are all backed upon the legal interpretation of the 14th amendment, as to what qualifies for US citizenship. So I am going to ask a few questions that I hope you can answer for everyone on the board.

  Did the 14th Amendment have language changing the original Constitutional requirement for POTUS? Can an Amendment ‘define or change’ an original Constitutional statement without specifically addressing it in language? Is there precedence for an Amendment, without specific language, changing the original Constitution? If the 14th Amendment did not contain language changing the original Constitutional requirements, which requirements/law is still in effect? Should the original Constitutional requirement for Natural Born be present in the original form, would it be based upon Legal Definition of Natural Born in 1790? Whose legal definition of Natural born was being used in 1790 in the US?

  Why did the DNC and Obama deliberately seal records, and fight vigorously to keep records sealed, if Obama is indeed legally qualified to be POTUS? What purpose does it serve to keep Obama’s records sealed if he is qualified under the ‘14th Amendment’ interpretation as the Obots claim? Has anyone posted a reasonable explanation to keep Obama’s records sealed?

  Truly, I continue to enjoy your website. I believe that it has been reasonably settled that no pre-election process to confirm POTUS eligibility exists, and likely no post election solution save a quo warrant. My last two questions are perhaps the most difficult to contemplate. When the system can be twisted to deny the public basic access to eligibility information for a POTUS, do we have a government of, by, and for the people? In your opinion, what form government do we actually live under now?
• ?????????? says:

  March 22, 2009 at 12:43 am

  Founding Fathers absolutely used Vattel’s The Law of Nations 1758 (1st printing English Language 1759) and was widely used thereafter. It was printed many times in England and France during the Eighteenth century, and widely read in the American Colonies. It was first printed in America 1796 and reprinted numerous times in America by 1872.

  Benjamin Franklin, on behalf of Congress, wrote to Charles Dumas (Swiss Journalist) thanking him for copies of Vattel’s The Law of Nations. One copy was given to Congress. This letter was signed by John Dickenson and John Jay as well. Website References below:

  http://www.franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedNames.jsp

  http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html
• Ballantine says:

  March 21, 2009 at 10:17 pm

  Benaiah,

  Seems clear you are going to keep saying the same thing regardless of the facts. You can keep citing two Justices who cited Vattel on issues other than who is a citizen at birth and try to argue that they will look to Vattel when defining a citizen at birth. Week argument generally, but significantly weaker considering that both these Justices rejected Vattel’s view of natives or indigenes in other decisions in favor of Blackstone’s view. You do realize the Justices have cited Blackstone about a thousand more times than Vattel. Please cite any authority in the pre-reconstruction period that defines natural born or native in terms of Vattel rather than Blackstone when actually dealing with who is a citizen at birth in the US and not some peripheral issues under international law. Here is some authority you might want to look at:

  “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6

  “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829)

  “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

  As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…and if at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

  “The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ” Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)

  “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” Justice Curtis, dissenting, Dredd Scott v. Sandford,, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

  “Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary 1856

  “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” In these [illegible] that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which [conferred] citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general definition has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies were subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of Independence, and the subsequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, except so far as some of them were disfranchised by the legislative power of the states, or availed themselves, reasonably, of the right to adhere to the British Crown in the civil conte[x]t and thus to continue British Subjects.” John Codman Hurd, THE LAW OF FREEDOM AND BONDAGE IN THE UNITED STATES (1858)

  “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …” Opinion of Citizenship, Bates (1862)

  “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

  “A Natural Born Citizen.” — Not made by law or otherwise, but born… “Natural Born Citizen” recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born to a country do constitute the nation, and, as individual, are natural members of the body politic…Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen.” George Washington Paschal, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEFINED AND CAREFULLY ANNOTATED (1868)

  “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115 (1866); id. at 1117 (same debates as Bingham’s statements)

  “So, also, any person born of a foreign father in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, may be a natural- born American citizen, if he choose.” Albert Orville Wright, AN EXPOSITION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (31st Ed.) (1888).

  That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth. Justice Story, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, (1830) 3 Pet. 99.

  “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.” U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
• Benaiah says:

  March 21, 2009 at 8:12 pm

  The SCOTUS relied upon Vattel as THE AUTORITY in THE VENUS when they defined the citizenship status of a “domicil”. THE VENUS court specifically stated that Vattel “is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [the subject of citizenship] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands”.

  The SCOTUS in THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 (1814), quotes Vattel’s Law of Nations and specifically quotes Vattel’s definition of citizens: “the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

  Moreover, The SCOTUS in FONG YUE TING v. UNITED STATES. WONG QUAN V. UNITED STATES. LEE JOE V. UNITED STATES., 13 S. Ct. 1016, 149 U.S. 698 (U.S. 05/15/1893), specifically referenced THE VENUS court’s reference to Vattel, and understood from THE VENUS court’s reference to Vattel that NATIVES, or INDIGENES, were NATIVE CITIZENS. Please note that a NATIVE CITIZEN is the same as a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

  To reiterate, the SCOTUS relied upon Vattel as THE AUTORITY in THE VENUS when they defined the citizenship status of a “domicil”.

  THE VENUS court specifically stated that Vattel “is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [the subject of citizenship] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands”. Then, THE VENUS court quoted Vattel’s definition of citizens and stated, “the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

  This CONFIRMS that the SCOTUS will consider Vattel as THE AUTHORIY on the subject of citizenship when they determine the meaning of “natural born citizen” as the framers of the Constitution intended it to mean.

  Please note that according to THE VENUS and FONG, the NATIVES, or INDIGENES, or NATIVE CITIZENS, who are the “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS” are “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

  Obama does NOT meet this definition. Hence, per the precedence of the SCOTUS in THE VENUS, and per the precedence of the SCOTUS in FONG, Obama is NOT a NATIVE, or INDIGENE, or NATIVE CITIZEN, or NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States, and thus Obama is NOT eligible to be the President of the United States.

  The FONG court actually cited The Venus court’s reference to Vattel with regard to the definition of a “domicil”, and stated the following:

  …in the case of The Venus, 8 Cranch, 253, 278: “The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country, for a special purpose, and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel, domicil, which he defines to be ‘a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there.’ Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens; but is, nevertheless, united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicil, he continues, is not established, unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. (Vatt. pp. 92, 93.)”

  To reiterate, this CONFIRMS that the SCOTUS will consider Vattel as THE AUTHORIY on the subject of citizenship, as they did when they detrermined the definition of “domicil” in THE VENUS, when they determine the meaning of “natural born citizen” as the framers of the Constitution intended it to mean when they drafted Article II of the Constitution.

  Simply put, Obama is NOT Constitutionally qualified to be the President of the United States.
• Sue says:

  March 21, 2009 at 10:28 am

  Phil,

  “Mr. Merrell says one of the marshals cited “some obscure law which made it illegal to say anything that caused ‘emotional distress’ to a federal judge.””

  “While we do not know the contents of the letter, perhaps the dear Judge doesn’t like anyone questioning his authority? I don’t know what I find more fascinating — that the Judge was clearly bothered by the letter (did he actually take the time to read it?) or that federal authorities visited a private citizen under the auspices of the Judge apparently having thin skin (after all, the two marshals reportedly didn’t do anything but “cite some obscure law,” and that was it).”

  I think this might be the so called “obscure law.”
  http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000115—-000-.html
  TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 7 > § 115Prev | Next § 115. Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member

  Now, how current is this so called “obscure law?”
  § 115. Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member

  “Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 3, 2007, and it is this version that is published here.”

  However, the long codification process by The office of the Law Revision Counsel (LRC) starts very quickly after any new legislation with “classification” to corresponding US Code sections. They put these in “Classification Tables” and make them available to us all at http://uscode.house.gov/classification/tables.shtml

  Hmmm, doesn’t sound too “obscure” to me.

  I seriously doubt if Judge Robertson ever saw that letter or even knows it exists perhaps. I don’t know this to be a fact, but I am pretty sure mail to federal judges and other high ranking officials would be opened and inspected by some type of law enforcement. I would suspect this is probably standard procedure for most high rankng government and judicial officials mail since 9/11.

  If this alleged story is factual, I’d love to hear the two U.S. Marshals version of this story.
• Ballantine says:

  March 21, 2009 at 12:54 am

  Benaiah,

  Honestly, not sure what point you are trying to make. So if the court has occasionally cited Vattel’s views on international law in certain matters, it means it will look to Vattel to define natural born citizen. Not a very convincing argument particularly when one considers the court and almost all significant authority in the early republic rejected Vattel’s definitions of native or natural born.

  Don’t understand citation to Fong. Case involved expelling aliens, didn’t define native-born and cited sections of Vattel other than § 212. Ironically, this opinion was written by the same Justice Gray who expressly rejected § 212 of Law of Nations in Wong Kim Ark argued by the dissent and based his holding on the fact that all children born in the US had always been native-born citizens regardless of parentage.

  The Venus involved a dispute of internation law and hence it is not surprising that Vattel was cited. The case had nothing to do with who was native-born and Vattel is cited to define who is a domicile. With respect to American law, Chief Justice Marshall made clear in Murray v. The Charming Betsy that persons born within the United States were citizens.

  My point was simply that it has been repeately argued all over the blogisphere that the founders used “natural born citizen” because the term was well known from the Law of Nations. This is simply not true as it wasn’t in an english translation at that time. If you want to argue that they intended Vattel’s meaning and used a term that wasn’t in Law of Nations at the time, you will need to cite some contemporary authority to such effect. However, most authority contradicts this.
• Ballantine says:

  March 21, 2009 at 12:54 am

  Benaiah,

  Honestly, not sure what point you are trying to make. So if the court has occasionally cited Vattel’s views on international law in certain matters, it means it will look to Vattel to define natural born citizen. Not a very convincing argument particularly when one considers the court and almost all significant authority in the early republic rejected Vattel’s definitions of native or natural born.

  Don’t understand citation to Fong. Case involved expelling aliens, didn’t define native-born and cited sections of Vattel other than § 212. Ironically, this opinion was written by the same Justice Gray who expressly rejected § 212 of Law of Nations in Wong Kim Ark argued by the dissent and based his holding on the fact that all children born in the US had always been native-born citizens regardless of parentage.

  The Venus involved a dispute of internation law and hence it is not surprising that Vattel was cited. The case had nothing to do with who was native-born and Vattel is cited to define who is a domicile. With respect to American law, Chief Justice Marshall made clear in Murray v. The Charming Betsy that persons born within the United States were citizens.

  My point was simply that it has been repeately argued all over the blogisphere that the founders used “natural born citizen” because the term was well known from the Law of Nations. This is simply not true as it wasn’t in an english translation at that time. If you want to argue that they intended Vattel’s meaning and used a term that wasn’t in Law of Nations at the time, you will need to cite some contemporary authority to such effect. However, most authority contradicts this.
• Benaiah says:

  March 20, 2009 at 7:01 pm

  NATIVES = INDIGENES = NATIVE CITIZENS = NATURAL BORN CITIZENS

  The FONG court understood from “The Venus” court’s reference to Vattel that NATIVES, or INDIGENES, were NATIVE CITIZENS. And, a NATIVE CITIZEN is equivalent to a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

  This CONFIRMS that the SCOTUS will consider Vattel as authority when they determine the meaning of “natural born citizen” as the framers of the Constitution intended it to mean.

  The FONG court actually cited “The Venus” court’s reference to Vattel with regard to domicil, and stated the following:

  “…in the case of The Venus, 8 Cranch, 253, 278: “The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country, for a special purpose, and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel, domicil, which he defines to be ‘a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there.’ Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens; but is, nevertheless, united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicil, he continues, is not established, unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. (Vatt. pp. 92, 93.)”

  Please note that the FONG court quoted “The Venus” court’s reference to Vattel, and the FONG court stated the “domicil” is “a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens”. Yet, the specific quote from “The Venus” court that the FONG court was quoting was as follows: “These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.”

  Please note that the FONG court stated the “domicil” is “a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens” while ‘The Venus” court stated the domicil is “a kind of citizen of an inferior order…”. Thus, the FONG court, when quoting from “The Venus” court’s reference to Vattel, added the phrase “…from the native citizens” to “The Venus”court’s statement that the “domicil”is “a kind of citizen of an inferior order…”, so that the FONG court’s understanding from Vattel was that a “domicil” was “a kind of citizen of an inferior order… …from the native citizens”.

  Thus, the FONG court understood from “The Venus” court’s reference to Vattel’s Law of Nations that NATIVES, or INDIGENES, were NATIVE CITIZENS, which is equivalent to NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

  Moreover, “The Venus” court stated that Vattel “is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands”. Then, “The Venus” court quoted Vattel’s definition of citizens and stated, “the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

  Please note that the NATIVES, or INDIGENES, or NATIVE CITIZENS, which is equivalent to “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS” are “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Obama does NOT meet this definition. Hence, per the SCOTUS in FONG, and per the SCOTUS in “The Venus”, Obama is NOT a NATIVE, or INDIGENE, or NATIVE CITIZEN, or NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States, and thus Obama is NOT eligible to be the President of the United States.

  Specifically “The Venus Court stated the following:

  “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’ ‘The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside there, and they are obliged to defendit, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws, or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.’”

  FONG YUE TING v. UNITED STATES. WONG QUAN V. UNITED STATES. LEE JOE V. UNITED STATES., 13 S. Ct. 1016, 149 U.S. 698 (U.S. 05/15/1893)

  [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

  [96] That those who have become domiciled in a country are entitled to a more distinct and larger measure of protection than those who are simply passing through, or temporarily in it, has long been recognized by the law of nations. It was said by this court, in the case of The Venus, 8 Cranch, 253, 278: “The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country, for a special purpose, and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel, domicil, which he defines to be ‘a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there.’ Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens; but is, nevertheless, united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicil, he continues, is not established, unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. (Vatt. pp. 92, 93.) Grotius nowhere uses the word domicil, but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs, or from any other temporary cause, and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates strangers, and the latter subjects.” The rule is thus laid down by Sir Robert Phillimore: “It has been said that these rules of law are applicable to naturalized as well as native citizens. But there is a class of persons which cannot be, strictly speaking, included under either of these denominations, namely, the class of those who have ceased to reside in their native country, and have taken up a permanent abode . . . in another. These are domiciled inhabitants; they have not put on a new citizenship through some formal made enjoined by the law of the new country. They are de facto though not de jure citizens of the country of their domicil.” 1 Phillimore, International Law, Chap. XVIII, p. 347.

  U.S. Supreme Court THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 (1814)

  As this question is not only decisive of many claims now depending before this Court, but is also of vast importance to our merchants generally, I may be excused for stating, at some length, the reasons on which my opinion is founded.

  The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

  Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’ ‘The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside there, and they are obliged to defendit, because it grants

  [Page 12 U.S. 253, 290]

  them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws, or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.’ ‘The domicil is the habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicil in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicil elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place, for the management of his affairs, has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicil.’

  A domicil, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but ‘an intention of always staying there.’ Actual residence without this intention, amounts to no more than ’simple habitation.’

  Although this intention may be implied without being expressed, it ought not, I think, to be implied, to the injury of the individual, from acts entirely equivocal. If the stranger has not the power of making his residence perpetual, if circumstances, after his arrival in a country, so change, as to make his continuance there disadvantageous to himself, and his power to continue, doubtful; ‘an intention always to stay there’ ought not, I think, to be fixed upon him, in consequence of an unexplained residence previous to that change of circumstances. Mere residence, under particular circumstances, would seem to me, at most, to prove only an intention to remain so long as those circumstances continue the same, or equally advantageous. This does not give a domicil. The intention which gives a domicil is an unconditional intention ‘to stay always.’
• Sue says:

  March 20, 2009 at 5:46 pm

  “It would have been nice to see the same kind of thing happening when folks were honestly threatening President Bush; at least I didn’t see the same breaking out of law enforcement personnel.”

  Your above statement. Guess you didn’t see this, huh? I’ll post only two articles, but I have many more if you would like for me to post them?

  http://www.rcfp.org/news/documents/ssprotest.html
  Protest letter to the U.S. Secret Service
  “The Reporters Committee objected to the interrogation of a journalist by Secret Service agents over a satirical editorial asking Jesus to ’smite’ the President.” (Bush)

  OR this.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/washington/04cheney.html?_r=1
  Man Sues Secret Service Agent Over Arrest After Approaching Cheney and Denouncing War
  “DENVER, Oct. 3 — A Colorado man who was arrested in June on harassment charges after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney to denounce the war in Iraq filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday accusing a Secret Service agent of civil rights violations.”

  Phil, this is my point. This is what the Secret Service, U.S. Marshals, Sheriffs, Police, etc. are suppose to do when someone turns in a possible threat to our elected officials or judges; “investigate the possible threat that was made and evaluate if it is a valid threat.” This is their job. If they don’t investigate and harm came to the person that was threatened; then the news media would be reporting loudly that the Secret Service, U.S. Marshals, Sheriffs, Police, etc. “were not doing their jobs.” These guys are in a no win situation.(law enforcement.)

  The above two articles regarding Bush/Cheney reflects perhaps when the people aren’t guilty but was taken too far by law enforcement? (Bush/Cheney)

  From the story posted here, it appears that the alleged two U.S. Marshals who visited Jesse H. Merrell, were “investigating the threat.” Sounds to me, from the story, that the two U.S. Marshals determined that there was not a valid threat. If they had determined that the threat was valid, then Mr. Merrell would have been arrested. However, I still feel the story is suspect.
• Ballantine says:

  March 20, 2009 at 3:22 pm

  Actually, Chief Justice Marshall cited § 212 of Law of Nations in 1814 in THE VENUS, RAE, MASTER, 12 US 253 (1814) as follows

  “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, “the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

  Notice anything strange? Gee, the phrase “natural born citizen” is missing and is replaced by “indigines.” The phrase “natural born citizen” was not in the original english transaction of Vattel’s Law of Nations and as far as I know did not appear until the 1797 translation, a decade after the convetion. Kind of cuts the legs out from under Donofrio’s arguments, don’t you think?
• Benaiah says:

  March 20, 2009 at 2:00 pm

  FONG is LEGAL PRECEDENT from the SCOTUS.

  The SCOTUS consulted Vattels’ Law of Nations as an authority in FONG, and thus the SCOTUS will consider Vattels’ Law of Nations as an authority when they determine the meaning of “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II of the US Constitution.

  Vattels’ Law of Nations
  § 212. Citizens and natives.
  The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

  FONG YUE TING v. UNITED STATES. WONG QUAN V. UNITED STATES. LEE JOE V. UNITED STATES., 13 S. Ct. 1016, 149 U.S. 698 (U.S. 05/15/1893)

  [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

  [21] Vattel says: ”Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. What it owes to itself, the care of its own safety, gives it this right; and in virtue of its natural liberty, it belongs to the nation to judge whether its circumstances will or will not justify the admission of the foreigner.” “Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.” Vattel’s Law of Nations, lib. 1, c. 19, §§ 230, 231
• Phil says:

  March 20, 2009 at 1:20 pm

  Bob,

  It is a kind of fairness that you might try to emmulate.

  Pardon me for a moment — I had to pick myself off the floor after having laughed out loud at your comment.

  Life is not fair — learn it, live it, love it. Further, nobody is fair, either. I grow very weary of people attempting to perpetuate the myth that somehow flawed human beings can be “fair” to others; it ain’t gonna happen.

  That being said, everyone has biases and filters, and while some do make an attempt to be fair, those biases and filters can be found if dug through far enough.

  For me and this site, I have never, ever, ever claimed to be fair nor non-biased; in fact, I claim quite reasonably to be biased towards a libertarian-leaning conservative approach to things.

  So, you can certainly spout off about how unfair I’m being with my web site (it’s actually quite flattering, thankyouverylittle), but you always have a choice when you enter a domain name into your browser’s address field.

  -Phil
• Bob says:

  March 20, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  Hey — if WikiPedia can claim to have standards, so can I!

  You have standards. Double standards.

  Wikipedia’s editorial policy is transperant, and requires radicial concepts like verifiability (something this Times article is lacking). And if you don’t like wikipedia’s editorial policy, you can dive and argue for changing it.

  It is a kind of fairness that you might try to emmulate.
• Phil says:

  March 20, 2009 at 11:53 am

  Sue,

  I’ll be doing another posting today where someone actually sent a letter to a US Attorney claiming that the President has usurped the office of the presidency and was similarly visited by law enforcement officers. So, these things are getting around.

  It would have been nice to see the same kind of thing happening when folks were honestly threatening President Bush; at least I didn’t see the same breaking out of law enforcement personnel.

  -Phil
• Sue says:

  March 20, 2009 at 10:38 am

  “You’re missing the point here. If Judge Robertson were truly in harm’s way, don’t you think the concerned citizen in question would have been arrested?”

  Let’s think about this, which has been my whole point.”

  -Phil,

  Actually, I think you are missing the point. IF this story is factual, and I have serious doubts that it is, if the letter this man wrote to Judge Robertson made threats toward him–and because the reporter did not include the letter in the story–the U.S. Marshals were simply doing their job. Nothing more. They were checking to see if this man was a real threat to Judge Robertson. That is what law enforcement do. Better to check out something and be wrong than not to check and harm to come to Judge Robertson. At least, if this story is factual, Judge Robertson filed a complaint and it is on record.

  Now, as I have stated, I have serious doubts about the validity of this story.

  “I don’t know how it is wherever you live, but here in the great State of Georgia, if the Sheriff or any other law enforcement officer comes around knocking on my door, it isn’t because he is simply making a friendly house call. It’s because he has a purpose in coming around to beyond the 7 foot DOT easement onto my property but just in front of the threshold to my front door.”

  Actually, yes. We have a very good rapport with our local Sheriff, Game Warden, police, etc. in our area. We know most of them on a first name basis. If they came knocking on my door, I would not automatically think they were there for a sinister reason or to arrest me. These U.S. Marshal’s were on a fact finding visit. You don’t arrest someone until you have all the facts. Or at least you don’t where I live.

  As I said previously, the validity of this story is suspect. I have emailed the reporter and requested the names of the two U.S. Marshals and asked this reporter if he also had gotten a statement from Judge Robertson. As of yet, I have received no response. I have also place a phone call to Judge Robertson this A.M. and left a message for someone to return my call. As of yet, I have not had a call back.
• Phil says:

  March 20, 2009 at 10:11 am

  Bob,

  Which is why Taitz’s site, Berg’s site, Apuzzo’s site, the “Free” Republic, and, oh!, this site have an unwavering commitment to an unfettered dialogue.

  And you just know I added an official policy on my site just for you!

  Hey — if WikiPedia can claim to have standards, so can I!

  -Phil
• Phil says:

  March 20, 2009 at 10:01 am

  Practical Kat,

  To me that includes affording them with the presumption that they are acting appropriately unless and until there is evidence to the contrary.

  I don’t know how it is wherever you live, but here in the great State of Georgia, if the Sheriff or any other law enforcement officer comes around knocking on my door, it isn’t because he is simply making a friendly house call. It’s because he has a purpose in coming around to beyond the 7 foot DOT easement onto my property but just in front of the threshold to my front door.

  But, like I said, maybe in your State the local/State/federal law enforcement officers make routine house calls for the sake of being friendly.

  -Phil
• Phil says:

  March 20, 2009 at 9:57 am

  Sue,

  You’re missing the point here. If Judge Robertson were truly in harm’s way, don’t you think the concerned citizen in question would have been arrested?

  Let’s think about this, which has been my whole point.

  -Phil
• marge says:

  March 20, 2009 at 3:35 am

  Mr. Donofrio,

  Thank you very much for all of the work you have put into this case. I believe that you have found the answer, but why would you quit now? We need your continued guidance through this because you are the one that understands what has to be done. It was your work that discovered the channel that might be the only one to a victory and the continued existance of the United States of America as we know it.
  I do not blame you for being disgusted with the American people, some do not care. However there are those that care deeply and most of us are not lawyers. We have been discouraged and angry and confused by what is happening. It is hard to trust anymore and we are also afraid of the future. We can see that our country needs us but what can we do that will bring the people together when they are so disillusioned. We have been wondering all through this, how can the Supreme Court and all of the other courts do this to the people. Case after case dismissed with no real explaination.
  We had an election where we could not have elected a candidate that was eligible. I supported three different candidates in the primary election, only to have them all drop out. That feels like fighting a hopeless situation where the power and money will prevail no matter what is done by the people.I do not feel that we had a real election. I believe it was a coup d’etat that took the people of this country, who have never experience anything like this by total surprise.
  We need you, Mr. Donofrio, I hope that you are not leaving us now. At least, if you must leave, go with the knowledge that the people are not ungrateful for what you have done. I thank you sincerely.
• Bob says:

  March 20, 2009 at 2:35 am

  First Amendment rights are very messy

  Which is why Taitz’s site, Berg’s site, Apuzzo’s site, the “Free” Republic, and, oh!, this site have an unwavering commitment to an unfettered dialogue.
• Bob says:

  March 20, 2009 at 1:50 am

  It’s the shoddy kind of reporting

  The Washington Times isn’t exactly known for its excellence in journalism.
• Who Are You Kidding says:

  March 20, 2009 at 1:11 am

  “Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whether he was born in Hawaii or not.” Leo Donofrio

  Wherever Obama was born, he was born to a father already married in Kenya before meeting Obama’s mother. The same British laws Donofrio cites to make Obama a British citizen at birth also make Obama illegitimate at birth and therefore ineligible to British citizenship, if he was born in Hawaii. Even Obama wrote in 1995 that he could not document his parent’s “marriage” and feared to investigate its circumstances. Donofrio has no case.

  Obama could only have been a British citizen at birth in 1961 if he had been physically born in British territory. Merely to suggest this possibility provokes Donofrio to fury, contempt, accusations of spreading “tabloid garbage”, and censorship on his blog. Donofrio cannot bring himself to understand that if Obama was born in Hawaii then only the United States had any legal claim upon him at that time, because as an illegitimate child Obama had just one citizenship.

  Donofrio’s entire case has been that what puts the “natural” into “natural born citizen” is that by ancient law and custom, respected by the Framers, the child naturally inherits in law the rights and condition of the father (“Obama inherits his father’s British citizenship”). Donofrio cites Vattel that “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen” but denies that this would allow natural born status to be conferred by a single parent. Donofrio wants it both ways. If we don’t restrict ourselves to Vattel other contemporary sources disagree, disregarding the mother. US nationality laws have evolved over the preceding century to roll back previous legislative discrimination against women based on similar notions. For example, one statute (the US Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act 1994) corrected a discriminatory anomaly whereby a child born to a female US citizen abroad before 1934, who had previously been prevented from assuming American citizenship, was put on the same basis as a child born to a male US citizen abroad before 1934, with retroactive effect.

  Never mind what I or anyone else might think is meant by “natural born citizen”: does Donofrio seriously believe that a modern judge or jury will interpret Vattel, the Constitution, and US law to the disadvantage of women and Obama, if Obama actually was born in Hawaii to an American woman and a father who transmitted no citizenship ? Does Donofrio seriously believe that a judge or jury will indulge in persnickety semantics – “fact of birth” as opposed to “legal citizenship” – just to humor Donofrio ? A federal judge ? A jury drawn from DC ? SCOTUS (who Donofrio has vilified as cowardly cult members) ? People who like Obama ?

  Donofrio’s case (Obama was born in Hawaii within a lawful marriage) is easily falsified by fact and therefore DOOMED before it begins. In contemporary America no federal judge or probable jury would ever interpret the law against women in the way Donofrio asks; indeed US transmission requirements are now easier for women than men. DOUBLY DOOMED.
• Practical Kat says:

  March 20, 2009 at 12:49 am

  It is you and your ilk that apparently feel the need to, say, equate the term “birther” as a pejorative to those of us who dare question — in this case — a federal officeholder, primarily the President.

  I did not use the term “birther” or any other pejorative in my post, unless you interpret “conservative viewpoint” to be offensive.

  I said I would like to see some respect shown to law enforcement officers who are doing their job. To me that includes affording them with the presumption that they are acting appropriately unless and until there is evidence to the contrary.
• Sue says:

  March 20, 2009 at 12:28 am

  Whether you agree or disagree with Judge Robertson’s decision, I think we all would agree that we would not want anyone to bring harm to this man, correct? So, if this reported story is factual, I for one, am glad that a U.S. Marshal check it out instead of ignoring the story. Judge Robertson is someone’s husband, father, grandfather, son, uncle, etc. If this were my relative, I’d be thankful for the U.S. Marshal’s too. Some of the comments on these blogs have been totally uncalled for regarding Judge Robertson. There are ways to voice your disagreement that are acceptable. Some of the comments I have seen on these blogs have been unacceptable in my opinion. I would not want Judge Robertson to be in harms.

  You can disagree without being disagreeable.
• Sharon 2 says:

  March 20, 2009 at 12:17 am

  From the USA Today article cited by Practical Kat:

  By next year, Prout hopes to begin expanding a federal database operated by the Secret Service to include suspects who have histories of disrupting local public meetings or threatening municipal government officials.

  The threatening of officials is understandable by what is meant by disrupting local public meetings? City council doesn’t like my speaking out at a meeting so I get reported?
• Phil says:

  March 19, 2009 at 11:37 pm

  Practical Kat,

  It saddens me that a web site that professes a conservative viewpoint shows such disdain for the work of law enforcement. The US Marshals have no way of knowing if they are dealing with a law-abiding citizen or another Tim McVeigh when a judge receives a hostile letter; making contact to help with risk assessment is part of their job.

  Do spare me your self-righteous indignation. Neither I nor my web site “show such disdain for the work of law enforcement” by questioning what said law enforcement does.

  And, really, Practical Kat, that is the whole point here, now isn’t it (as if I really even needed to say this to you)? It is you and your ilk that apparently feel the need to, say, equate the term “birther” as a pejorative to those of us who dare question — in this case — a federal officeholder, primarily the President.

  Frankly, I think it would be better put that it saddens me that so many on the other side of the political spectrum (read: non-conservatives and/or non-libertarians) that seem to profess such a scholarly viewpoint show such disdain for the work of the People. First Amendment rights are very messy, but better to have a mess to sort through than to have no mess at all.

  Question everything, in love, for the truth. Then, once said truth is found, hold onto it for dear life.

  -Phil
• Practical Kat says:

  March 19, 2009 at 11:27 pm

  Phil, I would suggest that you read some of these articles:

  Threats up against federal judges, lawyers
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-05-threats_N.htm

  Threats against federal judges on record pace
  http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/News/20060727-FedJudgeThreates.pdf

  Rising Threats, More Security Efforts for Federal Judges
  http://abajournal.com/news/rising_threats_more_security_efforts_for_federal_judges/

  And then look at this:

  United States Secret Service: Preventing Targeted Violence
  Against Judicial Officials and Courts
  http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/ntac_aapss.shtml

  However, fewer than a tenth of all 83 attackers and near-attackers communicated a direct threat about their targets either to the target or to a law enforcement agency prior to their attack. In actuality, persons who pose threats (that is, those whose behavior indicates they are thinking about, planning, and/or building capacity for an attack) most often do not make threats, especially explicit threats.

  These data do not suggest that investigators should ignore threats that are communicated to or about judges or other public officials or public figures. Many persons may have been prevented, or deterred, from taking action because of a prompt response to their threatening cormmunications. These data do suggest, however, that attention should be paid to identifying, investigating, and assessing persons whose behaviors suggest that they might pose threats of violence, regardless of whether they communicate direct threats to their targets or to the authorities. While few assassins and would-be assassins communicated a direct threat to their targets or to law enforcement, two-thirds are known to have spoken or written in a manner that suggested that they were considering mounting an attack against a target. Would-be assassins told family members, friends, work colleagues, and associates about their thoughts and plans or wrote down their ideas in journals or diaries

  As noted by other posters, we don’t know what, if anything, was said by Federal Marshals in their encounter with Mr. Merrell, nor do we know what, if anything he wrote in the letter.

  But it is the job of law enforcement to check these things out.

  It saddens me that a web site that professes a conservative viewpoint shows such disdain for the work of law enforcement. The US Marshals have no way of knowing if they are dealing with a law-abiding citizen or another Tim McVeigh when a judge receives a hostile letter; making contact to help with risk assessment is part of their job.
• Phil says:

  March 19, 2009 at 9:35 pm

  brygenon,

  What fascinates me is Phil’s conspiracy-thinking.

  The truth of the matter is that I’m part of a conspiracy that’s so secret that I don’t really know whether or not I’m really part of said conspiracy

  -Phil
• brygenon says:

  March 19, 2009 at 7:22 pm

  I have a problem with the validity of this story.

  It’s the shoddy kind of reporting that merely states, “Mr. Merrell says…,” and “Mr. Merrell now reveals…”. Probably true that Mr. Merrell did say that, and plausible that Merrell’s story was based on a real incident, but it is bad journalism to report it as news without checking into what the deal really was.

  I assure you that if I had been visited by two U.S. marshals, I would have written down their names and the obscure law they cited.

  Yeah, but you are also too sensible to write a letter that draws such a visit from two U.S. marshals.

  What fascinates me is Phil’s conspiracy-thinking. As we’ve discussed in just the last few days, the U.S. Marshals Service protects the federal judiciary, and there is no indication that they’ve done anything improper in this case. Since we don’t have all the facts, should we expect that the Marshals Service is doing its job, or that the evil power is trying to repress a citizen’s rights?
• nilesmc says:

  March 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm

  Correction: BHO Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961 and his Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 on Aug. 4,1982.
• nilesmc says:

  March 19, 2009 at 6:27 pm

  To anyone who cares to look, Sen. Barack H. Obama Jr….

  ADMITS…

  that he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1963 to a Kenyan father. He also admits that since his dad was Kenyan, Barack Jr. was subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948 (Kenya was a British colony). He also ADMITS that since the British Nationality Act applied to any children his dad fathered and that he had never renounced his American citizenship, Obama Jr.’s “Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1981.” (the day he turned 18 years of age)

  go to:

  http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

  and scroll down to the bottom of the page.

  p.s. I may of had a brainfart when I said he was born in 1963. It may have been 1961, please forgive me if I was wrong (thanx).
• Roderick says:

  March 19, 2009 at 5:33 pm

  I am going to look at this further and give my interpretation and ruling on the visit by the U.S. Marshals after doing my duty as a United States Citizen of holding down a job that relieves taxpayers from footing the bill for me. Be back shortly…
• Phil says:

  March 19, 2009 at 4:01 pm

  Anonymous,

  Phil this is your place but to claim we do not know the contents of the letter then to speculate on the reaction while shooting down any suggestion that the letter was threatening seems to be a useless exercise.

  I don’t know what’s more funny: that these kinds of observations are being made now after the President is now sitting in the Oval “Orifice” or that they weren’t made during the actual campaign (remember, this is the bigger issue on this sub-issue).

  -Phil
• Phil says:

  March 19, 2009 at 3:57 pm

  Imagine that — the “mainstream media” is being relegated (heh) to the level of the unconfirmed blogosphere.

  ‘Round and ’round it goes; where it stops, nobody knows.

  -Phil
• myson says:

  March 19, 2009 at 3:52 pm

  Phil, since we’re all about speculating, i’ll join in !

  The letter was so threating that an investigation was required; its sad that pple have to resort to such to get a simple point across.

  phil we all knew this case was unlikely to get anywhere so pple expressing fake outrage that it didnt succeed seem to be overreaching; why dont these wondeful lawyers save themselves all these disappointment, go to the pple that actually have standing like McCain &/or Palin, persuade him that he lost unfairly,if the evidence these lawyers have cant persuade the loser to file a suit, i dont see how they can persuade a jury or judge that the suit is proper !!
• Anonymous says:

  March 19, 2009 at 3:12 pm

  “While we do not know the contents of the letter, perhaps the dear Judge doesn’t like anyone questioning his authority? I don’t know what I find more fascinating — that the Judge was clearly bothered by the letter (did he actually take the time to read it?) or that federal authorities visited a private citizen under the auspices of the Judge apparently having thin skin (after all, the two marshals reportedly didn’t do anything but “cite some obscure law,” and that was it).”

  Phil this is your place but to claim we do not know the contents of the letter then to speculate on the reaction while shooting down any suggestion that the letter was threatening seems to be a useless exercise.

  A review of comments at Orly’s place, Citizen Wells and even right here by JeffM show a disturbing pattern of threatening language towards judges in these cases.
• Sue says:

  March 19, 2009 at 2:29 pm

  I have a problem with the validity of this story. The names of the two U.S. Marshals and the obscure law they cited were not provided. Therefore, there is no way to check out the validity of this story. Just someone’s say so, 2nd hand. I assure you that if I had been visited by two U.S. marshals, I would have written down their names and the obscure law they cited. The reporter also did not contact Judge Robertson for verification of this letter.

  Bogus story until all the information is provided. I have contacted the reporter asking for that information be provided. I also intend to contact Judge Robertson for verification of this story.

  Don’t believe everything you read. When the source is not provided for verification, doubt the validity of the articles or any other publication for that matter.
• Phil says:

  March 19, 2009 at 2:01 pm

  HistorianDude,

  Okay, but do you not ALSO think that it IS proper for US Marshals to be investigating private citizens if they have written letters that the recipient consider threatening?

  Since the Times article gives no indication as to (1) the contents of the letter, except that it was about Hollister v. Soetoro; that (2) the private citizen obviously knew his rights; and that (3) the US Marshals didn’t actually do anything except take up space, presumably on the private citizen’s property, I really do have to wonder (1) just how threatening said letter was; and (2) why a citizen is being visited by federal officials for speaking out against a Judge.

  Again, based on the actions, I don’t think we’re talking about a criminal citizen here by any stretch of the imagination, which makes the situation very bizarre to me.

  -Phil
• Phil says:

  March 19, 2009 at 1:56 pm

  Bob,

  Deterrence of future crime is also an objective of law enforcement.

  So is the absolute rubbish of so-called “hate crimes” legislation; simply another way for the dear, ever-wonderful [insert puking sound here] statists to try to seize as much control over the citizen’s lives as possible.

  Yeah, whatever.

  -Phil
• Truth and Justice says:

  March 19, 2009 at 12:50 pm

  My wife complained this morning that I was spending too much time reading about Obama. I said that he is not eligible to be President and I am concerned about my country. She said the election is over. I started to explain to her about why the Constitution is important and she said “I don’t want to know the details”.

  Then it thought, this is what the problem really comes down to? There are way too many people that either just don’t care or for whatever reason don’t want to know the truth.

  Unquestionably, it is a free country and she has the right to not care about the details. However, there are individuals who should have been accountable for vetting Obama or knowingly gave him a pass. Either way, that is no reason to say it is OK. You don’t let the bank robber keep the money and stay out of jail just because no one spoke up at the time.

  QUO WARRANTO

  Learn It, Love It, Live It
• HistorianDude says:

  March 19, 2009 at 11:59 am

  Phil wrote, “I don’t think it’s proper for US Marshals to be threatening private citizens unless they’re going to do something about it, such as arresting someone.”

  Okay, but do you not ALSO think that it IS proper for US Marshals to be investigating private citizens if they have written letters that the recipient consider threatening?
• Bob says:

  March 19, 2009 at 11:57 am

  I don’t think it’s proper for US Marshals to be threatening private citizens unless they’re going to do something about it, such as arresting someone.

  Deterrence of future crime is also an objective of law enforcement.
• Phil says:

  March 19, 2009 at 9:17 am

  myson,

  Speculation is improper in the case until we know what the letter contained !!

  Well, heck, if “speculation is improper in the case” (or anything else related to eligibility), then most of the sites out here on the blosophere would have to shut down!

  I speculate because I can, and I don’t think it’s proper for US Marshals to be threatening private citizens unless they’re going to do something about it, such as arresting someone. I have real issues when governing officials — even if they’re law enforcement — decide to go around and finger-point, essentially, without actually doing anything subsequent to said finger-pointing.

  Maybe the bigger issue of threats by the government is being missed here…?

  -Phil
• Tim Shidler says:

  March 19, 2009 at 9:00 am

  Mr. Donofrio,
  I know the battle over the birth certificate issue has been long and rough but it saddens and disappoints me that you are giving up. It is determined people like yourself, taitz, berg, keyes etc. that would make the difference and possibly be the
  hero(s) that SAVED America for our childrens future. I do want to thank you for your efforts.
  Sincerely,
  Tim Shidler
  Indiana Resident
• myson says:

  March 19, 2009 at 7:45 am

  As ‘we do not know the content of the letter’ i thinks its unfair to then go on to catigate the judge about his ‘thin skin’ or anything else unless you feel if threats were made in the letter(i did not say they were made, but if ) the judge shouldnt do anything to prove he has ‘thick skin’ ??
  I dont believe US Marshals go about questioning pple unless something that arouses thier interest is brought to them
  Speculation is improper in the case until we know what the letter contained !!
• JeanWTPUSA says:

  March 19, 2009 at 5:42 am

  Has Donofrio reached out to Orly?
• Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

  March 19, 2009 at 5:27 am

  I wrote this yesterday:

  What I meant is that there are three actions in this birth issue.

  1. The gadflies like Berg and Orly Taitz raise the dust.

  2. The press run after the passing cars.

  3. The politicians vote as they want, twisting the law to their own power.
• tibbs says:

  March 19, 2009 at 2:19 am

  Leo is right.The cases are all dead.The only chance at justice is through QW in DC.A few months ago,such was not the case.But the stonewlalling and obfuscation worked for the traitors of this nation.The celebrity status and praise of these lawyers is sickening.Just keep on donating and having false hope.And when it is pointing out,call everyone an obot.I respect Apuzzo,but even his case is going to be tossed out.The mystery man is in office.Why the lawyers refuse to use the only means to seek justice is anyone’s guess.The other 2 two most well known lawyers refuse to look at any evidence that points to a solution,because they are being governed by emotions and not the rule of law.
• Pixel Patriot says:

  March 18, 2009 at 10:28 pm

  Leo,
  Great work. You have opened the book of wisdom and laid it before the feet of Mr. Taylor. I pray he seeks the path of honor for his destiny. May God richly bless you for your tireless efforts to seek both TRUTH and JUSTICE.

  Pixel Patriot