NH SOS: “An investigation will commence” on Obama’s Name on Ballot; NH Qualified Candidates?
John Charlton at The Post & Email broke the story [see this comment] followed up on a posting by Dr. Orly Taitz that New Hampshire State Rep. Lawrence Rappaport, a Plaintiff in at least one of her cases, has asked the State’s Secretary of State William Gardner to investigate how it was that Mr. Obama’s name appeared on New Hampshire’s ballot without being properly vetted:
(Sept. 12, 2009) — New Hampshire State Representative, Lawrence M. Rappaport payed a visit to Mr. William Gardner, the NH Secretary of State, on Thursday, Sept. 10th.
Rep. Lawrence Rappaport and his wife
His stunning request: an investigation of Barack Hussein Obama’s presence on the NH 2008 Ballot.
Gardner’s stunning response: an investigation will commence.
I interviewed Mr. Rappaport by email, and asked him, on what basis did he make his complaint; he responded, “The basis for all of this is possible fraud. I don’t know what penalties will be assessed if fraud is proven.”
Rappaport’s action follows stunning revelations that Nancy Pelosi deliberately signed two different forms certifying Barack Hussein Obama was the Democratic National Party candidate for the presidency. While these forms have been known to exist for some time, it was J.B. Williams, writing for the Canadian Free Press who brought them national notoriety, earlier this week.
It is unclear, if, in the eventuality that New Hampshire determines fraud was committed, on the grounds that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, if the State will move, through its governor, to take some sort of action on the National scene, or who would be liable in law for the crime committed in-state. [emphases original]
A user on the TheTreeOfLiberty.com forum had the following posting, purportedly from Mr. Rappaport entitled, “Results of session with NH Secretary of State” from Friday, September 11:
Yesterday I met with the New Hampshire Secretary of State, William Gardner.
The issue was the questionable citizenship of Barack Obama and, therefore,
his right to be President of the United States. I told Mr. Gardner that there was controversy over Obama’s citizenship and
that I thought, therefore, that there should be an investigation of the
issue. All candidates are required to submit certain documents in order to
run for election in New Hampshire and one of them certifies you eligibility.
I presented the Secretary of State with two birth certificates from Kenya
saying that Mr. Obama was born there. He asked me if I thought they were
genuine. I replied that I did not know, but there was certainly enough
controversy to begin an investigation. The people who would start this
investigation were out of the office yesterday, but Mr. Gardner assured me
that they would investigate. He has my email address and telephone numbers
and he said he would keep me informed.
Best to all,
–
Larry
Laurence M. Rappaport
NH State Representative – Coos District One
rapp@lmr.com
(603) 237-4429 Colebrook
(603) 359-4150 Concord
Attorney Leo Donofrio made the following commentary regarding this story:
Those familiar with the cases brought by Cort Wrotnowski (Connecticut) and myself (New Jersey) will recall that we each sued the Secretary of State for failing to perform the ministerial duty assigned to them regarding their responsibility to protect the integrity of the ballots according to state statutes and their Constitutional oath of office. Both of these cases made the unique argument that these two legal duties, state and federal, were fused in the Secretary of State who is the head of elections in each respective state.
Any investigation by Secretary of State Gardner needs to start with an investigation of what he personally did to verify the eligibility of Obama as that was his responsibility to the voters of New Hampshire.
If Secretary of State Gardner was unaware that Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth, he should say that and state for the record what his position on that issue is. Alternatively, he needs to explain how – if he was aware of this fact - he came to the conclusion that Obama was eligible to be on New Hampshire ballots.
The issue of Obama’s British birth needs to be brought to the national table separate from the birth certificate issue. For anybody who was aware of Obama’s British birth admission, Pelosi’s certification couldnot have settled the issue of whether Obama was eligible since Pelosi and the DNC are not the United States Supreme Court which has never specifically addressed this question.
But the Supreme Court has, in various cases, indicated that the native born son of an alien is not considered to be “natural born” even if he is a US citizen at birth. “Natural born” does not mean a person is a different type of citizen with different rights. Rather, it is a circumstance of birth required by the framers – as a national security measure – to be President and Commander In Chief. [emphases original]
The cases to which Mr. Donofrio refers are Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and Donofrio v. Wells, respectively.
Monday, September 14, 2009 Update: Commenter “Greg Goss,” on another thread, posted the following exchange he had with the NH SOS office back in January, 2009:
My email exchange with the SOS of NH back in January.
No we did not. Candidates sign a declaration of candidacy and we accept that. Mr. Mohamed; however, submitted a biography of himself stating that he was born in Egypt..
—–Original Message—–
From: Greg Goss [mailto:Gwg1955@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:46 AM
To: Elections
Subject: Re: Presidential Ballot RulesSo you are telling me that you verified all candidates documentation for eligibility under US Constitution Article II?
—– Original Message —–
From: Elections
To: Greg Goss
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: Presidential Ballot RulesMr. Mohamed was disqualified because he was born in Egypt; therefore he is not a natural born United States Citizen.
—–Original Message—–
From: Greg Goss [mailto:Gwg1955@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:22 AM
To: Elections
Subject: Re: Presidential Ballot RulesThank you very much for the reply. I have one question. On your website it list the candidates that filed http://www.sos.nh.gov:80/presprim2008/candidatesfiled.htm. One candidate, “Sal Mohamed” is listed as “Disqualified”. What was the disqualification for?
Greg Goss
—– Original Message —–
From: Elections
To: Greg Goss
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Presidential Ballot RulesI can tell you what the law currently says regarding your questions (subject to change between now and next presidential election).
To be a candidate on the NH PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ballot, a candidate must file a declaration of candiday and pay a $1,000 filing fee during the filing period which usually occurs in late October or November of the year preceding the presidential primary eleciton.
To be a third party (independent, libertarian, etc) candidate on the NH GENERAL ELECTION ballot as a candidate for president, the candidate must file a declaration of intent during the June filing period and pay a $250. filing fee. THEN, the candidate must obtain 3,000 individual signatures on nomination papers — signed by registered voters in NH — have those signatures certified by the supervisors of the checklist where the voter lives, and then file those papers with the Secretary of State’s Office. There are deadlines for all of the above, but since that next election isn’t until the year 2012, I don’t have the exact dates.
I hope this helps answer your questions.
Karen Ladd
Assistant Secretary of State
—–Original Message—–
From: Greg Goss [mailto:Gwg1955@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:46 PM
To: Elections
Subject: Presidential Ballot RulesThis will mark the third attempt at obtaining information concerning the election of federal offices that appear on NH ballots. I have two questions.
1.) What is required for a candidate for President to appear on the NH ballot?
2.) What is the process for meeting or verifying those requirements?
Your attention is required and much appreciated.
Greg Goss
Hudson NH
A current discussion regarding the two separate documents filed by the Democratic National Committee as having nominated Mr. Obama to be President can be found here.
As an aside, Mr. Charlton also conducted an interview with me which can be found at this link.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a BirthCertificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy Salon.com
Now the following comment:
“The issue of Obama’s British birth needs to be brought to the national table separate from the birth certificate issue. For anybody who was aware of Obama’s British birth admission, Pelosi’s certification couldnot have settled the issue of whether Obama was eligible since Pelosi and the DNC are not the United States Supreme Court which has never specifically addressed this question.”
is one of the few honest comments on eligibility which I have seen. As noted, there is a potential ambiguity in the definition of “natural born citizen” and again as noted, since this is an interpretational issue of the constitution, it would appear that only the Supreme Court is in a position to resolve this.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court has apparently not seen fit to hear a case to determine the definition of this term.
Which leaves those arguing that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” in the position of having to accept the present status unless and until they can convince the Supreme Court to hear the case.
And until then the conventional understanding of “natural born citizen” and the present status would appear to be the law of the land.
Phil
Thanks
Geir (Gerhardt) Smith,
Surround the text you want to quote with [blockquote]text[/blocquote], replacing the square brackets with angled brackets (Shift-comma and Shift-period, respectively).
-Phil
can someone tell me how to make quotes ?
to make a blue box of a slightly darker hue in the middle
thaks
Joseph Maine wrote:
She’s director of the Hawaiian state Department that keeps vital records. She’s an member of the administration of Hawaii’s Republican Governor, Linda Lingle.
SCOTUS is SCOTUS. To birthers they’ve said, “denied”, “denied”, “denied”, “dismissed”, “dismissed”. When one filed for leave to file /in forma pauperis/, they said, “see rule 39.8″, under which the court denies leave to file IFP if satisfied that the underlying petition is “frivolous or malicious”.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said “Congratulations Mr. President,” after swearing in Barack Obama, and “Welcome to the Court,” after swearing in Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s pick to replace retiring Associate Justice David Souter.
I think a competent lawyer would simply have looked up “natural born citizen”, probably in Black’s Law Dictionary but if you don’t have a copy here’s a free on-line reference that has the term: http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ
We follow what the law is, not what Mario Appuzo thinks it should be or wishes it were.
That’s not reality. You’ve looked at it to fool yourself into believing what you desperately want to be true. No one picks Apuzzo or Donofrio as their source because they seek serious constitutional scholarship.
Akhil Reed Amar is a real constitutional scholar. Look him up. Last February he wrote a piece for a lay audience in which he noted that the top Presidential candidates were all eligible, and he explained the term at issue:
“Natural-Born Citizens: The Constitution’s rule that the president be ‘a natural born citizen’ focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.” — A.R. Amar, http://slate.com/id/2183588/
In the interest of truth, here are links to supplement information supplied by Sharon 2, concerning online law schools, in particular the school reported to have been attended by Orly Taitz:
http://www.taftu.edu/TLS/gi4.htm
http://www.taftu.edu/TLS/gi27.htm
Joseph Maine says:
September 15, 2009 at 7:37 pm
brygenon,
Who is Chiyome Fukino to say that Obama is “natural born” when she won’t even show his real birth record? Is she SCOTUS?
She is the director of vital statistics for the State of HI. In her aspect as director she has made the claim that the President was born in HI, in Honolulu, making him “jus soli” or born of the soil of the US.
Also, I’m curious, what do you say in response to the following? It is the best argument I’ve ever seen, and the most succinct, from Attorney Apuzzo:
Atty. Apuzzo may have had the most “succinct” response, but it doesn’t make it correct. For instance Apuzzo states that “The 14th Amendment requires the coming together of jus soli and jurisdiction in order for a baby to be born a U.S. “citizen.”. This statement is not correct. The Wong case does not state that.
Secondly Apuzzo makes the following statement;”…which is how Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, contrary to the express will of Congress, the Executive, and the People, defined it to make Wong a citizen and whose position has become the incorrect approach to applying the amendment.” That is his opinion, not fact. The Wong Kim SCOTUS case overturned the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was discriminatory against Chinese people. Apuzzo makes an assumption that was “the will of Congress, the Executive, and the People”. The ruling 6-2 in this case, along with Lynch v. Clarke, are the standard for all future cases regarding citizenship. Justice Gray’s opinion is not “the incorrect approach for applying the amendment”, it is the correct and recognized approach.
The 14th amendment states that “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.” This comes from English common law, where birth (jus soli) and allegiance and jurisdiction to the king defined what a citizen was.
Overall most of Apuzzo’s argument is based on his belief that the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS case was decided wrongly. He feels that Wong Kim Ark, also Lynch v. Clarke and the dozens of other cases, legal authorities, scholars and general understanding of the nature of citizenship are all incorrect and that his view, taken from the losing attorney (and dissenting opinion) in the Wong case, is the correct one. In reality the Wong case was decided 6-2 in favor of Wong. Mr. Apuzzo to those that only read his blog would seem to make legal sense. But if you read others you would see that most of his arguments have been refuted with actual case law.
Greg Goss,
My site is configured such as the latest comment for any given posting should be the first one that you hit upon scrolling to the bottom of the posting (or clicking on the Comments link for that posting). Reading down essentially takes you back in time through the next latest and so on.
My relaxing the moderation of comments should not have affected this system; hopefully you and others will let me know if things don’t appear to be working normally.
Thanks,
-Phil
brygenon,
Again, it’s an issue of what the candidate actually provided to the authorities that counts, not what the press or even he said about himself that is the issue.
I’m not really sure what we’re going on about here; either the candidate formally submitted paperwork or not. And, based on the paperwork submitted, this is the only thing that the respective SOS uses to “verify” claims by that candidate (in other words, it’s basically an honor system at this point).
-Phil
glacialhills says:
September 16, 2009 at 2:19 am
Thank you for helping me understand what is going on. I try to keep informed and have been reading up on all of this but I sure am not a law expert. So I do have one thing I dont understand though.
Using my premise that you go to the SOS to get a drivers license and submit documents to obtain the license like a ss# AND colb or whatever and later it is found that the SOS believe the documents you used were counterfeit and you need to go to court to fight the claim.As you state, since you are the defendant, you wont have to submit any proof if asked, and are able to fight the SOS and keep your license till they prove with concrete evidence that you falsely obtained the license with any evidence they can find about you, and you can withhold and block from them any and all documents that could prove or disprove their claim… as you say since the SOS are the ones taking you to court they need to prove you used false documents with nothing coming from you, or would the judge force you to produce supporting documents to prove you obtained the license legally?
I believe that if you blocked and withheld documentation from the court that the court would find in the sos favor and take your license and probably throw you in the jail.
But again I am not a law expert.
__________________________________________________________________
glacialhills, interesting theory. But in it you state that if you went to “get a drivers license and submit documents to obtain the license like a ss# AND colb or whatever and later it is found that the SOS believe the documents you used were counterfeit and you need to go to court to fight the claim.” In your scenario it is the government agency that is pursuing the issue and accusing the documents of being fraudulent. So you would be right but in this case you are neglecting one fact. The US government or any state government are not claiming that the COLB is counterfeit or fraudulent or that the President submitted any fraudulent documents. The US government and the State of HI have accepted the COLB and all related documents to be real and legal.
In this case the only people or entity that can question the legitimacy of the President and attempt to remove him is Congress. All of the lawsuits and claims right now are from private citizens. That is why they all keep being tossed out due to the standing issue. The US Constitution details the only way that a duly elected President can be removed. And if you recall no gov’t agency has questioned the veracity of any documentation that the President has submitted. So that is why your theory does not fit this situation.
If a private citizen is attempting in civil court to make a claim of fraud, legally the burden of proof is on them. That is why Orly has to prove that the so called Kenyan BC’s are real and President Obama does not have to prove that his COLB is not counterfeit. She needs to support her claims with legally admissible evidence. As of right now nothing that she has is enough to compel any court to go to the discovery phase, much less force President Obama to produce his actual COLB issued by the state of HI. So the President is not withholding or blocking any documentation from the court. The court has not requested any documentation. The burden of proof is on Orly. That is the way the law works.
Phil says:
Ah, good tactic: Snip, “Everyone but cave-dwellers knew Barack Obama’s father was a foreign student,” because when you snip the facts, they just go away.
Phil, that e-mail exchange fits perfectly. One candidate’s biography showed he was born in Egypt, so the NH SoS excluded him for not being a natural born citizen. Obama’s biography showed he was the son of a foreign student, and the the SoS did not exclude him because that’s no problem.
Eligibility deniers often say that Obama “admitted” his father was a foreigner. Admitted it? He wouldn’t shut up about it. He wrote a book about it. In his first big national-audience speech, his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote, the third sentence was, “My father was a foreign student.” Far from disqualifying him, right after that speech the buzz started that we might well have a future president here.
Thank you for helping me understand what is going on. I try to keep informed and have been reading up on all of this but I sure am not a law expert. So I do have one thing I dont understand though.
Using my premise that you go to the SOS to get a drivers license and submit documents to obtain the license like a ss# AND colb or whatever and later it is found that the SOS believe the documents you used were counterfeit and you need to go to court to fight the claim.As you state, since you are the defendant, you wont have to submit any proof if asked, and are able to fight the SOS and keep your license till they prove with concrete evidence that you falsely obtained the license with any evidence they can find about you, and you can withhold and block from them any and all documents that could prove or disprove their claim… as you say since the SOS are the ones taking you to court they need to prove you used false documents with nothing coming from you, or would the judge force you to produce supporting documents to prove you obtained the license legally?
I believe that if you blocked and withheld documentation from the court that the court would find in the sos favor and take your license and probably throw you in the jail.
But again I am not a law expert.
I am not sure how the comments work. Edwards comment of 9″04 PM 9/14 has been on top from a count of 53 comments to now 83 comments. How are we to know what are new comments?
brygenon,
Unfortunately, your conclusion appears to be baseless, based on the email correspondence that a concerned citizen had with the NH SOS office back in January.
Please see my posting again.
-Phil
brjam says:
September 15, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I guess i don’t understand. How hard is this! If the judge does not accept Orly’s BC documents then you can’t name any document that would be acceptable. So all documents that are entered into court must be suspect! How do we even know if the judge’s rulings aren’t falsified!
The birth certificate was submitted with Lucas Smith’s sworn statement and is proof that Obama is ineligible. It is proof under perjury of law not to meniton forgery and fraud. Obama has been proved to be ineligibleIt and at that point it is up to the defense to prove the document to be a fraud.
In addition, add to the proof. To substantiate the claim, Obama in his own writings and on his web sites stated he was a British citizen. This is also proof that Obama is ineligible.
So the question should be…..Dear Judge, please explain how anyone that is a British citizen born under British law is allowed to claim to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS
___________________________________________________________________
brjam,
Why should the judge accept Orly’s documents? She is still submitting evidence such as the infamous Pakistan travel ban which did not exist. That at best is shoddy lawyering, at worst showing contempt for the judical process. Secondly just because someone submits an affidavit doesn’t mean that makes the evidence any more admissible. Lucas Smith has been convicted of forgery. Without supporting evidence his so called Kenyan BC is suspect. We are supposed to believe his word that his story is correct? Without providing any additional evidence? Not likely.
The case does not have anything to do with the President being part British at birth. You seem to forget that since his mother was an American, at birth he would be considered an American since he was born in Hawaii. So President Obama could not be “British” at birth. At worst he would have been a dual citizen. That question can only be answered by the SCOTUS, if they ever decide to hear the case.
So the question remains to Orly from the Judge, prove to me that the President was not born in Hawaii. And you need to provide legally admissible evidence. Without that, no case will ever get past the dismissal stage.
Phil answered:
Everyone but cave-dwellers knew Barack Obama’s father was a foreign student. The SoS of NH didn’t disqualify Barack Obama because Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. The ability to convince yourselves otherwise does not effect the NH SoS.
brjam, excellent!
cbreitel says:
September 15, 2009 at 7:34 am
@Observer: Sorry, but the California bar is only “one of the most difficult” bar exams in the country because it allows crackpots from unaccredited law schools (like the online correspondence school Orly Taitz got her degree from) to take the bar. So many of them take the exam and fail that it brings the passage rate down. Otherwise, the California bar is not comparitively “harder” than the bar in other states.
The most excellent of attorneys consider the CA bar one of the most difficult, if not the most. Do your research.
I don’t understand what the rest of your rant is about so I can’t very well respond to it. Something about elite ivory towers and Ivy League degrees blah blah blah.
Better not take the CA exam then – both of your remarks here show you are not prepared!
Reality Check,
You’re always welcome around the site.
Yes, it is true; I have had up to a total of 3 commenters banned from my site. Today, I have since reduced that to 1, but they continue to circumvent my bans (there’s not a whole lot I can do about that). Of course, such bans were meant to cause said individuals to take a break from my site for a bit (they were getting a bit too rowdy).
And, quite coincidentally, less than half an hour ago (of this comment), I decided to open the commentary on my posts to not be as strictly moderated as they have been. So, I’d say things are progressing around here instead of regressing. We’ll see.
You’re a good BTR moderator. However, regarding certain eligibility attorneys, I have since decided that I will no longer be making commentary about them, either in blog or radio format.
-Phil
Hi Phil,
I thought I would return for one comment or two. I don’t read your blog very often but I understand that you have started banning “Obots” like most of the other Birther blogs. I must say I am disappointed in you for that if it is the case.
Also, you apparently still resort to misleading headlines with the “?” added. I think you have done that to the point it is nearly childish but if it accomplishes some goal for you then it is your ball park as they say.
I thought I would pass along two good bits of good news:
First, it seems Larry Sinclair has filed an affidavit with Judge Carter stating that Orly Taitz urged him to lie under oath in Barnett v Obama. This might explain why Orly was late for her court appearance the morning of 9/8. Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19784205/090915-LWS-Affidavit-Reducedpx?classic_ui=1
Second, it also appears that Orly Taitz and her star witness Lucas Smith (The fake Kenyan birth certificate guy) have parted ways for similar reasons:
and
Link: http://www.youtube.com/user/InspectorSmith
That is not an affidavit but taken with the Sinclair affidavit it is fairly damning. Of course, all three of these characters are serial prevaricators so the truth may be difficult to sort out. Every day it appears more likely that the California Bar will be taking a keen interest in the near future of the activities of “lady liberty” as Ed Hale likes to call her.
Again, thanks for appearing on my radio show a while back. Maybe we could chat again sometime on topics such as the clever use of question marks and Orly Taitz disbarment?
brygenon,
Who is Chiyome Fukino to say that Obama is “natural born” when she won’t even show his real birth record? Is she SCOTUS?
Also, I’m curious, what do you say in response to the following? It is the best argument I’ve ever seen, and the most succinct, from Attorney Apuzzo:
“In our citizenship laws, jurisdiction breaks down into three types, territorial, legal, and political. Territorial means one is physically present on a sovereign’s territory. Legal means that once present on that territory, one is subject to the laws of that sovereign. Political means that not only is one subject to that sovereign’s laws, but is also duty bound to give that sovereign allegiance and loyalty for the purpose of preserving and protecting that sovereign and its people. The 14th Amendment requires the coming together of jus soli and jurisdiction in order for a baby to be born a U.S. “citizen.” This jurisdiction is not just territorial and legal jurisdiction, which is how Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, contrary to the express will of Congress, the Executive, and the People, defined it to make Wong a citizen and whose position has become the incorrect approach to applying the amendment. Apart from the Wong Court usurping the power of the other two branches of government and of the People, that could not be the correct application, for just being born on the soil automatically provides territorial and legal jurisdiction and would render the word “jurisdiction” a redundancy. The minute a baby is born he or she is on the territory of the sovereign. Also, just being physically there, the baby is subject to the sovereign’s laws. Hence, that baby still has to satisfy the requirement of political jurisdiction, i.e., that he or she owes sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the sovereign. Such sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty can only occur at the time of birth if the baby is born only and only if subject to the sole political power of the United States. And that can only occur if the baby at the time of birth does not inherit any other citizenship from either his mother or father. That happens if the baby’s mother and father are both U.S. citizens, for to be otherwise would allow one of the parent’s foreign citizenship to descend upon the baby should the country of that parent exercise jus sanguinis citizenship. There would be no inheritance of a foreign citizenship if the foreign parent’s country follows only jus soli citizenship. But this would be an exception and rarely occur given the citizenship practices of most nations. Since the United States would recognize, dual or multiple citizenships in the baby under the proper circumstances as established by treaties or international law, it would consent to its jurisdiction not being complete over that baby and under the concept of jurisdiction laid down by Justice Marshall, its jurisdiction would not be absolute.
Such a baby born with divided allegiance is therefore technically not a Fourteenth Amendment citizen. Because of Wong, our government has refused to interpret the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause correctly, even to the point of allowing baby’s born in the U.S. of illegal alien parents to be “citizens.” There is no evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment amended in any way Article II. Hence, such an expansive interpretation of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” does not and should not change the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which is the original standard the Founding Fathers established for one to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.”
I’ve looked in every possible way to see how this is in error. I cannot find it. It is common sense. It is factual. It is correct. Period.
Black Lion,
Personally, while I won’t be commenting on what other individuals do with their sites, I do appreciate your kind words pertaining to my site.
In fact, as of right now, I am now opening up my comments to being unmoderated, with the following caveats:
1. You must provide a name and email address (email address remains unseen to the public but seen to me) for every comment;
2. You must have already commented and have had it approved once by me in order for your further commentary to immediately show up on my site;
3. I see all comment activity via email.
I am doing this as a compromise between allowing more spirited discussion to occur (without my having to always be directly involved) while also maintaining some sense of management to my site.
Of course, in all cases, comments are subject to moderation. However, especially in cases such as yourself, Black Lion, I don’t think this will be an issue.
I hope everyone respects the change and treats it properly.
-Phil
yo said:
Hawaii checked, and found that Barack Obama is a natural-born American citizen. http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
I guess i don’t understand. How hard is this! If the judge does not accept Orly’s BC documents then you can’t name any document that would be acceptable. So all documents that are entered into court must be suspect! How do we even know if the judge’s rulings aren’t falsified!
The birth certificate was submitted with Lucas Smith’s sworn statement and is proof that Obama is ineligible. It is proof under perjury of law not to meniton forgery and fraud. Obama has been proved to be ineligibleIt and at that point it is up to the defense to prove the document to be a fraud.
In addition, add to the proof. To substantiate the claim, Obama in his own writings and on his web sites stated he was a British citizen. This is also proof that Obama is ineligible.
So the question should be…..Dear Judge, please explain how anyone that is a British citizen born under British law is allowed to claim to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS,
The implications to the solider are as follows..since the President is hiding his information….others may be holding it as a threat!
The POTUS could be coerced and black mailed into decisions not in the interest of the U.S.
The POTUS could be making decisions benefiting the enemy or intentionaly putting our soldier’s into harm’s way.
Plus, by taking an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, it is the responsibility of each soldier to question any order that may not be legal or may be a threat to the constitution of the US. The POTUS if found ineligible, would not only expose soldiers that followed the orders to prosecution for war crimes as well as laws in other countries but it may be used to set precedence to break the laws of the constitution
glacialhills:
It’s not only in this case that the burden is on the person denying eligibility. The burden is on Rhodes because (1) she is the plaintiff in this action, and (2) she is seeking relief in the form of a TRO. The legal system works in most cases by placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff. It also generally places the burden of proof on the moving party on a motion. Here, Rhodes is both the plaintiff and the moving party requesting temporary relief from the Court. To justify a TRO or a preliminary injunction, Rhodes has to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Since success on the merits here depends on her claim that Obama is not eligible to be president, she has the burden of showing that it is likely she will succeed on the merits on the claim that Obama is not eligible to be president. Pointing at Obama and saying that Obama has not shown he is eligible to be president is to misallocate the burden of proof.
I ALREADY GOT THE HOUSE!
YOU CAN’T TOUCH THIS!!
CONST. LAWYER.
glacialhills says:
September 15, 2009 at 2:25 am
So only in this case is the proof of one needing to be eligible for the position of POTUS put on the ones asking for that proof. Only this circumstance.For all other instances, If any one else wants a position, license,job or any other number of things that person, the person applying for the thing, is required to show their proofs.Could anyone go to… say, the SOS to get a driver’s license and demand to the clerk “It;s up to you to find proof I am not a citizen!”…I think not! But this instance is somehow different? How so? Why is this the only instance where the person that needs to be eligible for the position does not need to prove that case to a challenge? And not only does he need to show nothing as you believe, he can actively prevent and block the finding of ineligibility by the ones trying to prove so.
Amazing!
____________________________________________________________________
glacialhills,
That is the law. Orly brought the suit, so the burden of proof is on her. She has to prove that the President is ineligible, the President does not have to prove that he is eligible. It is similar to a criminal case in that the burden of proof is on the gov’t to prove that the defendant is guilty, not for the defendant to prove his/her innocence.
Orly and others seem to forget that when they are making their legal cases. That is why anyone familar with the law always saw the flaw in her cases. She always expected that the Judge would require that the President prove his eligibility by providing the documents she requested. Most people familar with the law knew that the request for the list of docuemnts the brithers requested would never be granted. Orly compounds this mistake by including debunked information such as the so called Pakistan travel ban as evidence. Unfortunately for the birthers Orly has a long way to go to meet her burden of proof to compel the President to produce any sort of evidence.
cbreitel: You’re wrong.
Justin: Thanks for your input. I AM skeptical. After this past year and all the bogus stuff put on the Internet (COLB, photoshopped pictures, etc.) I am skeptical of everything. Do you know who scanned those images? The Scribd documents don’t say. There’s nothing to indicate what they are, where they came from, or who posted them (not even a pseudonym, that I can find), except the date posted (9/13). I’m also skeptical because the stamps on them don’t indicate the state where each was received. That’s weird. On another Scribd page, someone posted the nominee certifications from South Dakota. The stamp on those say Secretary of State and SD. It would seem obvious that a state’s stamp would indicate the state where the document was received. It’s entirely possible that these documents are what they purport to be, but without a provenance, they mean nothing. If we’ve learned anything over this past year, it’s that we MUST be skeptical of everything.
cbreitel says:
“’m sorry to disappoint you, but I’m afraid it’s not an accredited institution. California is one of the few states, for reasons I’ll never understand, that allows graduates of unaccredited law schools to become attorneys.”
FYI
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/distance_learning_schools_and_accreditation.php
On his youtube channel, Lucas Smith stated about 3:00 CST that…well, here’s what he posted:
Phil, it looks like Orly can’t handle the legal truth about the outcome of her cases, so she flies off and makes ridiculous statements. Below is what she posted about you on her blog…
“I was very busy flying red eye 5 times in so many days: twice to GA, once to DC and back and didn’t have time to respond to all the slander and defamation on the Internet.
Arlene Williams, who has a web site InvestigatingObama.blogspot.com and Phil from TheRightSideofLife were defaming me, claiming that I lied about Judge Carter’s order. Please, look at the order page 2 line 3. It states”… Court encourages the parties to begin discovery before the scheduling conference” (scheduling conference is on October the 5th).”
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
As you know we have disagreed most times but have attempted to keep it civil and have allowed people to post that have dissenting opinions. I have never seen you defame Orly or anyone on your blog so for her to say that just because she a) doesn’t like critism; b) because she doesn’t understand the law is totally uncalled for. That is why no one with any legal background can respect her or what she does.
HLC,
While I appreciate your perspective RE: the balance of your commentary, I think the American people are already doing a fantastic job of “tak[ing] a massive, coordinated unselfish effort” to make change — towards the Constitution.
-Phil
misanthropicus,
Allow me to recast your link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-fringe14-2009sep14,0,940651.story
Great story, by the way.
As I’ve said in the past, so I shall continue to say: It’s about the Constitution. If questioning someone’s credentials — such as the President’s — is considered “extreme,” then I’ll be extreme forevermore.
The last time I checked, nobody in America is above the law, per the Constitution.
-Phil
Bobert,
Likely because such verbiage was never sent as a part of Mr. Obama’s validation process.
-Phil
Pete
Geir Smith,
Don’t panic. The wheels of justice sometimes turn slowly, but they turn nonetheless. Obama has carma coming, make no mistake about it, there will be no presidential pardons for him and no CIA help. Be that as it may, I find it utterly ludicrous that the largest nuclear weapon store is in the hands of someone who won’t produce a document my children have to produce to play grade school sports. The individuals whom supported this will have to soon acknowledge that they support socialsim/progressive/communism and not the Constitution, the very document that has nurtured themselves and forefathers for years. I’m still hopeful for a peaceful and legal resolution, one that involves the truth given to the American public, so we can learn and grow. The vengence in me wants to see the Obots exposed, but just enough so that people remember the Constitition. We the People, Freedom, Rule of Law….all this is ‘fake’ without that document. So I say once again to the Obots…
It’s the Constitution Stupid…
If nobody is required by law to make sure the candidates are eligible, then the guy that’s complaining about cfp has a point. But, isn’t it true that Hawaii requires that the dnc send them a letter saying their candidate is qualified? And didn’t pelosi send Hawaii a letter saying obama is qualified?
I guess if we try to prove pelosi committed fraud, the courts will tell us we don’t have standing, as only some hawaii entity has standing, and hawaii WON’T DO ANYTHING about the fraud.
Phil, it seems that there may be more to the story regarding the DNC election certifications. There is an individual (jbjd) that claims that the article and information by the Canada Free Press was originally his idea and the documents were taken from him. See below…
There’s also a comment about this on Leo’s naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
And there is an interesting bit of news re: a possible finding in the Obama divorce documents in the theobamafile.com “shaky news” post – as well as a good link to article about Mr. Soros’ worldwide shadow government influence there too. Evil coming out of the shadows. I’ve been wondering when more focus would be given alone to the man, Soros, and his own sick “messiah” ideas – co-opting just about everything these days.
@MGB: I will concede to you that “Dr. Taitz” is an “accomplished person.” She has certainly filed many lawsuits in many different jurisdictions around the country. Of course, every single one of those lawsuits has been tossed out of court. But still, she’s filed a lot of them. Oh, she also filed a petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was denied. She then violated the rules of ethics by personally confronting two individual justices of the Supreme Court and trying to engage them on her ridiculous petition. Theypolitely told her to leave them alone.
If her education came from a correspondence school, who cares, so long as it was sufficient (it was) to allow her to pass the bar, become licensed, and even to be certified to practice before the Supreme Court? It’s an accredited institution.
I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I’m afraid it’s not an accredited institution. California is one of the few states, for reasons I’ll never understand, that allows graduates of unaccredited law schools to become attorneys.
Are you some kind of elitist? Is there a caste system in your snooty world, where only people who graduated from Ivy League law schools are credible?
Define “elitist.” If I’m an “elitist” for believing that a real estate agent who got her degree from an online correspondence school and subsequently filed one frivolous lawsuit after another that without fail got dismissed for laughable reasons is basically incompetent, then yes, I guess I’m an “elitist.”
How about, instead of attacking the woman personally, you address the very real, serious issues that she raises?
She has raised none.
@Observer: Sorry, but the California bar is only “one of the most difficult” bar exams in the country because it allows crackpots from unaccredited law schools (like the online correspondence school Orly Taitz got her degree from) to take the bar. So many of them take the exam and fail that it brings the passage rate down. Otherwise, the California bar is not comparitively “harder” than the bar in other states.
I don’t understand what the rest of your rant is about so I can’t very well respond to it. Something about elite ivory towers and Ivy League degrees blah blah blah.
Black lion sayed
The Judge reminded Orly that “This is a court of law”. This is important and telling statement because Orly keep neglecting the fact that she needed to prove that President Obama was ineligible, President Obama doesn’t have to prove he is eligible because he is the defendant. She has to have compelling evidence to force the Judge to order the President to submit the records she wants. And the so called Kenyan BC’s will not be that evidence. It looks like Capt. Rhodes will be going to Afganistan.
So only in this case is the proof of one needing to be eligible for the position of POTUS put on the ones asking for that proof. Only this circumstance.For all other instances, If any one else wants a position, license,job or any other number of things that person, the person applying for the thing, is required to show their proofs.Could anyone go to… say, the SOS to get a driver’s license and demand to the clerk “It;s up to you to find proof I am not a citizen!”…I think not! But this instance is somehow different? How so? Why is this the only instance where the person that needs to be eligible for the position does not need to prove that case to a challenge? And not only does he need to show nothing as you believe, he can actively prevent and block the finding of ineligibility by the ones trying to prove so.
Amazing!
Phil,
This issue with CFP and jbjd is a tempest in a teapot.
I have assisted jbjd with researching the Texas law on this,
and who get credit is rather small minded, in light of what needs
to be accomplished. But…jbjd is right about the NH law, and
that will go nowhere, other than alerting the opposition of a
new direction of attack. Leo D. is also right. This whole thing is
going nowhere through civil procedure, it must be either a criminal
procedure,i.e. a formal complaint like jbjd has put together for election fraud, or a quo warranto case, which is unlikely due to
who has to accept the case in D.C. The military angle is not going to
work, as Obama will just keep canceling orders, nullifying cases.
So, we are left with this approach, and it will only be good in a
few cases where the state law requires the candidates to be Constitutionally qualified to appear on the state ballot. Even if
the state does not require proof be filed with the application, by
so filing it is understood that the candidate has been vetted.
Also, both parties require candidates to be eligible as well. So,
going at this through the back door so to speak, may be the only
possibility, assuming any state AG will actually follow up on the
complaint. Right now the best thing anyone can do, is find out what the requirements are for filing candidates in their state,
and if one of the few that requires constitutional eligibility,
then use jbjd’s complaint form, fill it in for their state and
send it in…the more the better.
This constant bickering about who gets credit for what is counter
productive and is juvenile. Changing this tidal wave coming at us
is going to take massive, coordinated, unselfish effort, and right now there is far too little of that.
Phil, this affair is getting hotter and hotter – yesterday I described in a post here how there is a growing concerted effort attempting to discredit sites like yours and Farrah’s (a still posted Pajama Media piece by Adam Graham describing Ruffini’s and Hanke’s actions attempting to wedge you guys away from the “mainstream republican/ media).
It is interesting that now a major outlet has picked up the message (LA Times) and in today’s issue they have a longer (and rather cautious) piece trying to do the same (“Some fear GOP is being carried to the extreme” http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-fringe14-2009sep14,0,940651.story).
Until today LA Times never acknowledged other than contemptuously the Obama (il)legitimacy issue – however, today’s paper tone is very prudent, as I asaid – looks like while they still want to discard the matter, are also beginning to hedge a little bit.
Good luck -
Phil,
Didn’t Mr. Obama organize his own website during his presidental campaign called FightTheSmears where, on Mr. Obama’s own site, it stated that he was a dual citizen at birth? Why didn’t the SOS of NH also “Disqualify” Mr. Obama for failing to meet the “natural born citizen” requirement?
[... Justin W. Riggs: Can you explain the fact that those two documents have marks and artifacts in nearly the same spots? Are the Democrats still living in the age of mimeographs, or Xerox machines, that reproduce blots on the document, over and over and over again? Wouldn’t you think they’d use a word processor that prints out a nice clean copy from their Word document, after updating the dates and names? Really. Explain that for me. I want to know what sort of technology these “progressives” use. ...]
MGB,
These documents were scanned in with the same scanner. Again, go back to possibilities vs. probabilities. Is it *possible* that the two documents were manufactured, and that that’s the reason that the marks and artifacts are in nearly the same spots? Yes, it’s possible. Probable? Not really.
Is it possible that because the two documents were scanned in using the same scanner, the marks and artifacts appear in nearly the same place? Absolutely. Probable? Absolutely. Go put a hair on your scanner, and then scan two documents. There’s a decent chance the two scanned documents will have similar artifacts.
If you’re skeptical, *get the documents for yourself*. It’s not difficult to do. Then you won’t have to wonder whether they were forged or not.
Black Lion,
There is certainly more to this story from a number of different perspectives; please see the updated commentary in the relevant posting here, shortly.
-Phil
Geir (Gerhardt) Smith,
No. The commentary for every posting is enough on my site for anyone to say their peace about whatever it is they have on their mind.
-Phil