Eligibility Update: TN Grand Jury Presentation; Update: A Second Treason Allegation?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 update:
Retired Lieutenant Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III posted his own update per his new site, TheJagHunter. The following are pertinent excerpts:
Interactions with the Monroe County Grand Jury “committee” yesterday were most unsatisfying, however…
TREASON is alive as a criminal accusation naming OBAMA! It was agreed yesterday the crime of TREASON CAN BE advanced against OBAMA in a Tennessee State criminal trial. It was established also the formal accusation for TREASON CAN BE advanced into a Federal criminal trial received from Tennessee State.
But we’re not there yet.
The Monroe County Grand Jury “committee” was comprised of four men. Gary Pettway was absent. Monroe County Deputy Sheriff Byrum was present. The lead Juryman, standing at a speakers podium to my left was in contact with the County Prosecutor’s Office by cell phone.
It took 45-minutes for clarity and focus to take a seat in the room and participate in the deliberations.
The four Jurymen were not clear about the criminal actors or the particular crimes the four Jurors were to inspect.
There was a pointed conversation about what the four Jurors had been tasked to do. …
“Coach” was told the four men were to consider only whether Gary Pettway (Foreman), and Assistant District Attorney James Stutts obstructed efforts on 3 September and 1 October 2009 to report criminal conduct to the full Grand Jury.
TREASON and FORGERY were the two specific criminal acts the four Jurors scrutinized as it went to the obstruction of STUTTS and PETTWAY. …
The end result is this: The STUTTS and PETTWAY issue moves to the side. Interesting, but no longer relevant. Their obstructions are cleared away.
It is not clear when the full Monroe Grand Jury (numbering thirteen) will sit to receive the document record proving OBAMA’S criminal escapades. I’ll tell you all I know when I know. Updates will be posted hear. …
The four Grand Jurymen openly discussed yesterday a second criminal complaint from a Monroe County man naming OBAMA in commission of TREASON. The committee was unclear regarding the status of the second criminal accusation.
And, unfortunately, it’s too bad that there are those individuals on this planet that simply cannot find any way to agree to disagree with the LTCDR:
This comment came in to The JAG HUNTER yesterday afternoon at 1334 hours local (1:34 PM):
“I’m sure glad I live in a different state than you do.
“If I lived near you, I’d take the time to make a special trip to put a bullet right between your TREASONOUS eyes.
“I sure hope you (expletives) America-hating tea-bag waving traitors hurry up and have your civil war. I want to be the first kid on the block with a confirmed kill of a Republican!!!”
I’ll moderate this comment by reporting it today to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Monroe County Sheriff and local police.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 update:
I have received evidence from two sources that the Tennessee grand jury has not returned any sort of decision yet with respect to LTCDR Fitzpatrick’s presentation.
First, MotherJones.com posted, in part, the following update:
*UPDATE: James Stutts, the Monroe County District Attorney, left a message Monday night saying that in fact, Fitzpatrick testified for two hours before the grand jury in August and the jury declined to bring any charges based on his testimony. He also disputes Fitzpatrick’s characterization of that appearance and says the former Navy man was not physicially restrained in any way nor was he forced from the courtroom.
However, AmericanGrandJury.org posted the following from a certain Phil Dedrick, a concerned citizen who says he was on site:
Outside the courthouse with 36 supporters who showed up from Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and Iowa…I also advised the crowd that The AGJ will be incorporating the Pendleton 8 in it’s next Jury…Even Channel 10 WBIR from Knoxville showed up and listened to all of Walter’s story today…With the big box and back pack that had all of Walters evidence, I can not see how the Monroe County Jury could even comptemplate not returning a TRUE BILL in favor of handing down the charges…
Representatives who showed up are from these following organizations:
(Tennessee Patriots from ResistNet.com)
(2 Un-Named individuals with Tennessee OathKeepers)
(TN. SonsOfLiberty.org President, Phil Hoffman, (Constitution Party of Tennessee 1st Vice State Chairman, Mr. Jim Headings, Mr. Doyle Pritchard and 6 more member un-named, they are also with the Tea Party Nation)
(Unknown??? County, Chairman from The Constitution Party of TN., Mr. Corky McDonald)
(Mike Williams, McMinn County, TN. Tea Party)
(Dorothy Cook, John Coker, and Barry Toomey with the TeaPartyNation, Athens, TN.)
(Jerry Henderson, Unknown Organization)
(Naomi Swanson with Chattanooga Patriots, but from Dalton, GA.)
(Joy Duval with Chattanooga Patriots/SmartGirlsPolitics.com)
(J.K. Williams and several other Smokey Mountain 9/12′ers)
(Glenda Marshall with Unknown Organization)
(and several un-named supporters totaling 36 supporers)…
My group left after Walter went into the Grand Jury room because we learned today that the Grand Jury will give their decision in a few days and not today…
—-
Over the Thanksgiving weekend, retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III referenced a CanadaFreePress article via his blog stating that his treason charges over Mr. Obama’s eligibility for the presidency will be presented before a Tennessee grand jury (a Court-appointed grand jury, not a citizen grand jury) tomorrow, December 1:
After visits from the Secret Service and months of rejection by the courts, Commander Walter Fitzpatrick may get his day in court.
On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee. [emphases original]
Much more is at the referenced link. LTCDR Fitzpatrick apparently had some previous issues with this grand jury:
Fitzpatrick had to go so far as to file criminal obstruction charges against Foreman Pettway before he would gain access to the court. Despite it all, Commander Fitzpatrick forged ahead and on December 1st, his complaint will be heard by his local Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury.
It is not immediately clear at this time what the reason is for the grand jury’s formation nor at what time or to what extent that LTCDR Fitzpatrick would be presenting his evidence.
In related news, Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, released the following concerning his case being appealed:
25 Nov 2009 – For Immediate Release
There is activity in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit. The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA has issued a Briefing Notice schedule for the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case.
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Briefing Notice Issued for Kerchner v Obama & Congress Lawsuit:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/11/kerchner-v-obama-congress-3rd-circuit.htmlBrief due dates for the Appeal are now set for 4 Jan 2010. We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case along the legal pathway to the ultimate decision maker for this historic and precedence setting lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court. They will determine the answer to the pressing legal question of what is a “natural born Citizen” of the USA per Article II constitutional standards and did Obama and the U.S. Congress violate the Constitution and statutory laws and my constitutional rights during the 2008 election cycle. And, the Supreme Court will also be asked to refer their legal definition to Congress to determine if Obama meets that legal ruled definition. I say Obama does not meet the founders and framers intent for the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is a deceiver and a usurper.
In the interim in addition to our internet efforts, we are running educational advertorials in print media to inform the general public of the issues. See an example attached. More examples can be seen at: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/advertorials.htm
And from the comments section, the UK’s Mail Online posted a story entitled, “Did Barack Obama lie about his birth to become President?”
Is it really too much to think that Mr. Obama could not have lied about his background to ensure his own political ascendancy? What does anyone really know about this man’s past outside of an alleged certification of live birth?
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Obama is NOT an Article II Natural Born Citizen and therefore is NOT eligible to be President. This is the biggest political cover-up in U.S. History.
see Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress et al
visit http://www.protectourliberty.org
phone 732.521-1900
Sam: You don’t “fight fire with fire.” You gratuitously insult people to deflect from the points that they make and to avoid having to actually respond to their points.
I’m glad that you’re happy. I wish it were truly so, but you sound like an unhappy person to me.
btw, did you know that the Borg were NOT the “good guys?”
“If I am a jerk…” SanDiegoSam
“If I am a jerk it is only because I….” am really the TRSoL outcast HistorianDude deceiving contributors at TRSoL into believing that I am SanDiegoSam trying to simulate being rational. No?
“a bald faced unadulterated lie. The Hawaii DoH has confirmed no such thing…” SanDiegoSam
Without official DoH UIPA dis-confirmations that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate, SanDiegoSam cannot possibly know that Hawaii DoH’s official confirmations are “a bald faced unadulterated lie“; SanDiegoSam does not claim to have (= does not have) any such dis-confirmations; therefore SanDiegoSam’s assertion is itself a “factual inexactitude“.
SanDiegoSam is not claiming such dis-confirmations because, in light of Hawaii DoH’s official confirmations through UIPA that Obama’s vital records do involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate, the claim of such dis-confirmations would easily be proved false.
Consequently that model of truth and rationality Histori…., I mean SanDiegoSam, is reduced to the conscienceless expedient of abuse.
“They did not deny ‘access’ to anything….They denied ‘your request’.” SanDiegoSam
This only confirms my previous point: SanDiegoSam has never seen a Hawaii DoH UIPA notification relating to Obama’s vital records. These notifications state that access is denied on the basis of Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18 (i.e. privacy) and §92F (e.g. “Government records….protected from disclosure“). SanDiegoSam is apparently ignorant of the fact, or plain refuses to recognize the fact, that UIPA (Hawaii FOIA) demands that DoH permits access unless a privacy issue obtrudes: DoH cannot follow SanDiegoSam’s preferred response of “Get Lost” because that’s illegal.
If a record exists DoH must disclose the record or cite the reason for its denial of access. DoH cite “privacy” and “Government records….protected from disclosure” for denying access to files establishing that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate. That means the records exist, otherwise DoH would have responded that “[ X ][Request] cannot be granted” because “[ X ] Agency does not maintain the records“.
“If I sent in a UIPA request for Batman’s birth certificate, and their response was ‘denied in the entirety’…” qwertyman
As explained immediately above, qwertyman’s UIPA request for Batman’s birth certificate could not draw a UIPA notification from Hawaii DoH that access to Batman’s vital records “Is denied in its entirety” because Batman’s records don’t exist. qwertyman’s UIPA request for Batman’s non-existent records could only receive notification that qwertyman’s “[ X ][Request] cannot be granted” because ““[ X ] Agency does not maintain the records“.
Requests for access to DoH files establishing, for example, that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate meet with the UIPA notification that access “[ X ] Is denied in its entirety” on the basis of Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18 and and §92F. No prizes for guessing what that means: they exist. Implications? Described below.
MGB:
If I am a jerk it is only because I fight fire with fire.
But yes.
I’m very happy.
Thanks for asking.
Sam: You are a jerk. Are you happy now? You try like somebody’s obnoxious little brother, like a pesky fly, like Eddie Haskell, over and over again, to get a rise out of someone, by insulting them, instead of debating honestly. There’s my response to your circular logic. You’re a jerk.
Roderick:
I know. You cannot do the impossible. You cannot back up your own lie with evidence.
That’s why I waved it in your face.
MGB:
Actually, they did both. They answered the factual allegations and what they inferred the factual allegations were intended to establish. Do you disagree that what they inferred was not exactly what Strunk intended to infer?
Why would they state what is not true?
So what? The defendant’s paragraph covers that issue quite nicely. And what it says is that the birth certificate released is valid. And it says so under oath.
That’s okay. The response says “natural-born citizen” in paragraphs 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 62 and 63.
Now, MGB, you might be forgiving for missing that once. But thirteen different times? How does that happen with somebody of your IQ?
Who are you kidding:
That is a bald faced unadulterated lie. The Hawaii DoH has confirmed no such thing in any statement, comment or response to any UIPA request.
Nonsense. They did not deny “access” to anything. They tell you exactly what it was that they were denying. They denied “your request.”
You guys make up the silliest stuff. Too bad you can’t manage to come up with some evidence for your beliefs given all the effort you put into imagining things.
Feel free to redact the names then. I don’t care about the names of the people this response was sent to, what I want to see is the explanation for the denial. I’ve also been lied to by people in the birther movement far too many times to take them at their word.
The (not transcribed) is the most important thing you’re saying here. You’re basing your entire conclusory statement on what is not written.
What (3) then demands is that the agency or department tell the requester where they can obtain such a record. If you cannot obtain the record anywhere, then that entire option on the notice to requester form is meaningless.
If I sent in a UIPA request for Batman’s birth certificate, and their response was “denied in the entirety,” would you also infer from that that the DoH does have Batman’s birth certificate? Because according to what, what they should do is say that they don’t have Batman’s birth certificate and mark off an option that then forces them to say where you can get Batman’s birth certificate.
Again, basing your entire conclusion on what the Department of Health did not say is an extremely shaky foundation. We have examples of amended COLBs online, and they explicitly state their date of amending on the form itself. Your implication is that not only was President Obama’s birth certificate amended (because of what you infer from what the Dept of Health did not say) but also that the amendment was not noted on the COLB itself.
This is looking for an elephant in a mousehole, and for all your analysis and clever wordplay, you’re still looking at a mousehole; that elephant simply isn’t there.
Sam, thank you for the link. Can you explain this?
Plaintiff paragraph 33 says, “Mr. Barry Soetoro has been asked for his ‘vault’ version birth certificate; however he has refused . . .”
Defendants’ response to 33 says, with emphasis added, “TO THE EXTENT this paragraph ALLEGES that President Obama’s birth certificate [note: NOT "vault" version] has not been released to the public, that allegation is denied. TO THE EXTENT this paragraph ALLEGES that the birth certificate released to the public at the direction of President Obama is not a valid birth certificate or that such certificate is not sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship, those allegations are denied.”
So they answered allegations that THEY inferred from plaintiff paragraph 33, not the factual allegation made in the paragraph.
“To the extent” means that’s what they are answering, but not the factual claim made in the paragraph.
They don’t state that Obama released his vault version birth certificate.
The plaintiff’s paragraph says nothing about the validity or invalidity of whatever “birth certificate” was released at Obama’s instructions. (btw, he wasn’t president when he supposedly gave those instructions.)
I see nowhere in plaintiff paragraph 33 where they mention citizenship at all, but notice that the response speaks only to proof of “U.S. citizenship” NOT natural born citizenship.
Reference what I have said many times about weaseley language.
A “There is no option given for a request for a particular document that does not exist.” qwertyman
Of all the possible ways to answer the problem (for loyalists) that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate, qwertyman’s approach is decidedly (to quote his own word) the silliest.
The UIPA request and response I transcribed below refer to “proof offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’, for an amendment [to Obama's vital records]” and that example concerns only an amendment to Obama’s birthdate. The form of words “proof offered to establish” is taken directly from the Hawaii DoH Rules and refers to the document(s) DoH requires to be submitted to amend a birthdate. In the e-mail communications which I transcribed access to the document(s) involving an amendment to Obama’s birthdate is requested and such access is “denied in its entirety”.
In the UIPA Handbook to which I referred qwertyman he will find on pages 37-38 details of how DoH must respond to a UIPA request: “(1) Where agency will disclose all or part of the record… (2) Where agency is denying access to all or part of a record… (3) Where agency is unable to disclose the record or part of the record….”
If no document(s) “offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’, for an amendment [to Obama's vital records]” existed the law demands that DoH respond that access “cannot be granted because [the] Agency does not maintain the records” (as in (3) above). Access cannot be denied to [a] document(s) that do[es] not exist so, given DoH responded (as the law demands) that access “Is denied in its entirety” (as in (2) above), this can only mean the document(s) “offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’, for an amendment [to Obama's vital records]” without any doubt exist(s). Simply: If A then B; If C then D; C; therefore D.
B “…your example showing…delayed and/or amended” qwertyman
The example (transcription) only concerned document(s) “offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’, for an amendment” to Obama’s vital records. DoH through UIPA also officially confirm (not transcribed) that Obama’s vital records also involve a delayed filing. A delayed filing for a birth which must have occurred prior to July 4, 1961 in turn confirms the amended birth date of August 4, 1961, as shown on Obama’s alleged COLB. That the reasons for the delayed filing and amendment have not been summarized and printed (as the law demands) on Obama’s alleged COLB makes it illegal: the implications are given in my previous comment.
C “What you’ve typed doesn’t mean anything…” qwertyman
UIPA responses are attached as PDF files: they only contain the name of the requester and, in the context of Obama’s vital records, always have a big X next to “Is denied in its entirety“, with the reasons always given as HRS § 92F-13 and HRS § 338. I transcribed the pertinent parts. I certainly have no intention of placing online potentially identifying specific UIPA responses forwarded in confidence to me or potentially identifying data from e-mails, so that bullies at this blog can “indulge” in the sport of intimidating and vilifying innocent people.
Skeptical readers can verify for themselves any UIPA confirmations given here (or verify their own particular questions) by making personal inquiries or UIPA requests or taking UIPA legal action to order DoH Director Fukino to release all documents and records she consulted before issuing her July statement. It’s beyond reasonable doubt that if qwertyman and fellow Obama loyalists cannot obtain DoH official retractions of DoH official confirmations of Obama’s delayed filing and amended birthdate, and contrive not to inform readers here, then they have conceded the delayed filing and amended birthdate to be the facts they incontrovertibly are.
D I commented below that, due to SCOTUS in Erie v. Tompkins (1938) upholding Article X of the US Constitution and federal courts being required to defer to 28 USC 1652, a federal court can only rule on the definition of a natural born citizen by recourse to a statutory authority, not the opinions of historical debaters or scholars. Statutory authority is only found in state law, which incorporated the English common law definition. Simply: any citizen born in one of states of the Union = natural born citizen of a state = natural born citizen of the US.
It should also be made clear that the statutory authority found in state law implies that not being born in one of states of the Union = not being a natural born citizen of a state = not being a natural born citizen of the US = not being eligible to the Presidency.
That’s your example showing proof that Obama’s birth certificate was delayed and/or amended?
What you’ve typed doesn’t mean anything unless we see the full letter and response (feel free to redact names).
What you seem to be saying is that because the response of the DoH to a UIPA request that appears to have contained a list of requested documents was denied in full, that means that the DoH has every single one of those documents.
The relevant page seems to be 43 of the UIPA Manual:
http://www.state.hi.us/oip/UIPA%20Manual%205aug08.pdf
It contains 4 options of Notice to Requester:
1. Granted in entirety
2. Cannot be granted because:
a. Agency does not maintain records, Agency believed to maintain records: ____________
b. Agency requires further explanation
c. Request wants compilation not readily retrievable
3. Denied in entirety
4. Granted only in part
The letter asks for an amended birth record. There is no option given here for a request for a particular document that does not exist. To take the denial as confirming by implication that Obama’s birth certificate was amended is silly.
“The COLB has already provided the absolute legal proof. The [newspaper] announcements are just more evidence.” SanDiegoSam
“Neither [Obama or sister] have ever claimed any place of birth for Obama other than Kapiolani Medical Center.” SanDiegoSam
“…since you have nothing to contradict them [announcements, DoH statements, Obama's and sister's claims]…” SanDiegoSam
“…COLB alone is….absolute legal proof…” SanDiegoSam
SanDiegoSam is making claims about Obama’s alleged COLB which have been invalidated by the facts and he needs to develop a new pack of sophistries to stay in the game. Hawaii DoH have officially confirmed through UIPA (Hawaii FOIA) that Obama’s vital records involve both a delayed filing and an amended birthdate.
As just one example of such an official confirmation, here is a part transcript of an official response sent by DoH in reply to UIPA requests made by more than one person (whom I won’t name but does not include me):
“Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:20 AM
Dear Dr. Fukino,
I request an electronic copy of the proof offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’, for an amendment to be made to President Obama’s birth certificate…
TO: [any and all names redacted]
FROM: Janice Okubo,
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED: 10/8/09
DATE OF THIS NOTICE: 10/29/09
Notice is provided to you that your request:
[....] Will be granted in its entirety.
[....] Cannot be granted because: [....] Agency does not maintain the records. [....] Agency needs a further description or clarification of the records requested. [....] Request requires agency to create a summary…from records not readily retrievable.
[ X ] Is denied in its entirety
[....] Will be granted only as to certain parts…”
Hawaii DoH by law (UIPA) are only permitted to deny access to an existing record, otherwise the response must confirm that the record is not maintained, will be provided etc. By denying the UIPA requests Hawaii DoH confirmed they hold the record requested.
Immediately at least four serious game-changing implications must follow the official confirmation by Hawaii DoH of both a delayed filing and an amended birthdate:
1) delayed filings and amendments (under 1961 and current rules) must be summarized and printed on Hawaii COLBs, but Obama’s alleged COLB does not show either the delayed filing or the amended birthdate which Hawaii DoH has officially confirmed through UIPA, meaning Obama’s alleged COLB is “unofficial” or faked, therefore SanDiegoSam is wrong;
2) under Hawaii law, as the result of a delayed and amended filing, Obama’s alleged COLB is not presumed true but must be proved to whatever court or official it is submitted, therefore SanDiegoSam is wrong;
3) Obama was born at least 30 days before the date of the delayed filing of his birth (August 8, 1961), but the alleged COLB and the alleged contemporary newspaper birth announcements give August 4, 1961 as his birthdate, meaning either the COLB or the announcements have been faked, therefore SanDiegoSam is wrong;
4) hospital births in Hawaii in 1961 were filed within 7 days so, Obama’s birth being a delayed filing, he cannot have been born at Kapiolani Hospital: as Obama’s previous birth certificates could not have given Kapiolani Hospital as his place of birth, Obama was “mistaken” when he wrote to Kapiolani Hospital claiming birth there, therefore SanDiegoSam is wrong.
SanDiegoSam can only be right if Okubo is wrong but, given these UIPA responses are issued officially by Okubo on behalf of Hawaii DoH itself, if we apply SanDiegoSam’s own rule these confirmations are “absolute legal proof” that SanDiegoSam is wrong.
Other than face the truth (that for some unknown reason Obama has relied COLBs and other “evidence” which are “unofficial” or fake and has issued statements at variance with the facts his original vital records must contain), SanDiegoSam’s only escape in this desperate situation is to call either me or Okubo a liar: it’s more probable he will call me a liar, but that will only convince SanDiegoSam and other Obama loyalists. Now if SanDiegoSam were only bothered about the tender sensibilities of Obama supporters he wouldn’t be here being so aggressive and contemptuous towards the unbelievers and undecided. However, when the latter cannot be intimidated and frightened away eventually they must somehow be persuaded: SanDiegoSam’s problem is the only way that can be acheived is by DoH dis-confirming its official UIPA responses that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and amended birthdate. Unless SanDiegoSam can demonstrate Hawaii DoH has retracted its earlier official UIPA confirmations, these confirmations stand as “absolute legal proof” that Obama’s alleged COLB is “unofficial” or fake and that SanDiegoSam’s blind faith is a delusion or a deception.
Unfortunately for SanDiegoSam, by responding to individual UIPA requests as the law demands, and giving truthful answers to highly specific inquiries, Hawaii DoH are not willing to risk aiding and abetting felonies. Moreover, Fukino’s July statement was a gift to “birthers”. Through a UIPA lawsuit “birthers” can obligate Fukino to fulfil her legal duty to make public all the documents and vital records which she consulted prior to her July statement concerning Obama.
Obama loyalists may strut around this blog with circular duperies to stomp genuine discussion or disrupt the perceived enemy, and Obama’s attorneys and spinmeisters may believe they can keep the facts hidden from the people they despise, but the issue is out of their control. There is a law (UIPA) which exists to protect the people and “standing” does not prevent its use: already it has proved the voters were deceived. If SanDiegoSam, qwertyman, or siseduermapierda are even only slightly concerned they should desist from bullying people here for seeking the truth. No cessation of bullying = no concern for the truth.
“If your parents are both American citizens and you are born in America, you become a natural born citizen” bob strauss
I am sorry to disappoint but if by this proposition is meant that such persons are natural born citizens exclusively then such a proposition will never persuade any court. A sourced explanation is found elsewhere at this blog [ http://tinyurl.com/TRSoL-28493 ]. Simply: natural born citizen of a state = natural born citizen of the US.
Here are the relevant permutations on citizenship and elective office:
Proposition 1: citizen born in one of states of the Union = parents both state citizens and citizen born in the state = eligible to every statewide elective office.
Proposition 2: citizen born in one of states of the Union = only one parent a citizen of the state = eligible to every statewide elective office.
Proposition 3: citizen born in one of states of the Union = neither parent a citizen of the state = eligible to every statewide elective office.
Proposition 4: citizen born in one of states of the Union = only one parent a citizen of the state = not eligible to every statewide elective office.
Proposition 5: citizen born in one of states of the Union = neither parent a citizen of the state = not eligible to every statewide elective office.
Proposition 6: citizen born in the United States = parents both American citizens and citizen born in America = eligible to the Presidency.
Proposition 7: citizen born in the United States = one or none of the citizen’s parents are American citizens = eligible to the Presidency.
Proposition 8: citizen born in the United States = one or none of the citizen’s parents are American citizens = not eligible to the Presidency.
In all states P1, P2, and P3 citizens are by law equivalent; P4 and P5 citizens do not exist under current law. No definition exists in the constitution or federal law which corresponds to either P6, P7, or P8; therefore by virtue of SCOTUS in Erie v. Tompkins (1938) upholding Article X of the US Constitution (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people“) courts must defer to 28 USC 1652:
“The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.”
In state law there is no rule that discriminates P6 citizens from P7 and P8 citizens: the states’ legal systems are based on English common law (further incorporated by statute, for example, Hawaii Revised Statutes §1-1) and it is the unalienable common law right of every person to be considered a natural born citizen of the state in which they were born, conflating P1, P2, P3, P6, and P7 citizens without distinction, making P8 citizens impossible. Erie v. Tompkins does not permit federal courts any discretion to consider the opinions of historical debaters or scholars: courts must implement a statutory authority. Therefore according to every state law (subject to age, residency etc. provisions), all citizens born in a state of the Union are eligible to every statewide and federal elective office, including the Presidency:
“The people of these United States constitute one nation. They have a government in which all of them are deeply interested. … But if the government has [certain] rights on her own account, the citizen also has correlative rights. He has the right…to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions.” (Crandall v. Nevada, SCOTUS, 1867; restated in Slaughter-House Cases, SCOTUS, 1873.) [emphasis applied]
Article 2(1)(5) of the US Constitution never defined a natural born citizen as either P6 or P7, just as the US Constitution never found it necessary to define a citizen: the relevant definition was understood to be found in state law (based on and incorporating by statute English common law – restated by the XIV Amendment), where all citizens born in a state of the Union are equally eligible to all state and federal elective offices. (In parallel with the British naturalization laws to 1776, federal statute could modify and limit the rights of federally naturalized citizens: “Naturalization in England and the American Colonies“, A. H. Carpenter, The American Historical Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Jan., 1904).)
There is nothing in the Hawaii consititution or law which discriminates between types or classes of citizens: consequently all citizens born in Hawaii (subject to age, residency etc. provisions) are eligible to every statewide and federal elective office in the Union, including the Presidency. Any proposition outside this definition will not be entertained by SCOTUS.
First of all, you haven’t said whether you’re talking about Afghanistan or Iraq. I’ve done some looking and found nothing to back what you’re saying. I don’t want or expect you to do my research for me, but you need to provide at least some backing for your factual claims.
Please point out a single action taken by President Obama since taking office that demonstrates the slightest bit of “loyalty to Kenya.”
also over to you sise whatever you call yourself. You are a good soldier of the imposter as you selectively pull out promises that may or may not be in the process of fulfillment but ignore all of the lies that this devil has perpetuated on the American people. This is in the same vein as the imposter as [he] struggles to continue to deceive the American people but [his] poll ratings drop.
I am not going to do the research on showing you that big fat lie. The imposter made that statement during his campaign circa June 2008 as he was reaching a desperation pitch to decive the people furthermore in order to garner votes. Actually the best way to find out more about that statement would be to ask ‘bama himself but since the imposter lives in a quasi communistic state [he] feels that he does not have to answer to the people the taxpayers just as gorbachev and mao tse tung do not have to answer to the citizenry. The man is a phony and that is why so many people are asking for [his] documentation. I personally don’t care about the phony’s documentation because [he] shows loyalties to kenya so the point is mute.
Roderick:
Please show us where Obama ever said the troops would be back by December of 2009.
MGB:
According to the only actual statements by Obama and his sister that can be found on line, so can they.
MGB:
Sure. Here.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9997554/Strunk-v-US-Dept-of-State-and-Homeland-Security-Amended-Verified-Complaint-and-Petition-in-Re-Foia-Usdc
You will find that the paragraphs match up perfectly.
No.
When the statements are not preceded by a specific designation of either DOS or DHS, then the statement is being made by both Departments. That they are speaking jointly is made clear in the preface:
Roderick says:
December 4, 2009 at 2:33 pm
* During the ‘campaign” [he] said “[i] will have the troops back by December 2009. *
No he didn’t. You’re talking out your tookus.
He promised he would direct the military leaders to end the war in Irag on his first day in office. Promise Kept.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/
He promised he would end the war in Iraq in 16 months. In the Works
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/126/begin-removing-combat-brigades-from-iraq/
He promised to send 2 additional brigades to Afghanistan. Promise Kept. Done.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/134/send-two-additional-brigades-to-afghanistan/
He promised to train and equip the Afgan Army. In the Works
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/165/train-and-equip-the-afghan-army/
He promised to increase non-military aid to Afghanistan by $1 B. In the Works.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/166/increase-non-military-aid-to-afghanistan-by-1-bil/
the imposter lies again. During the ‘campaign” [he] said “[i] will have the troops back by December 2009. The other day the imposter said “i will have the troops back in 18 months”.
Good for you, that’s actually kind of cool.
But just because you, MBG, can do that, does not mean that everyone, most, or even a large percentage can.
qwertyman: I can name the hospital where I was born, where each sibling was born (even though the name of the hospital changed over the years, but I know which name was in effect when each was born) and I know the addresses where my parents were born, at their respective homes.
Sam: I read the entire DOS and DHS, and other defendants’ response that you linked regarding the Strunk case. Can you please give me a link so that I can read what this was in response to? I looked at Scribd, but I cannot find it. I found an original filing by Strunk, but the paragraphs in that plaintiff’s filing don’t seem to match up with the paragraphs listed in the response. I’m not a lawyer, so I need clarification: In the response, under the heading “facts”, there are statements, including the one you quoted. However, that statement is not preceded by short-hand indicating who is making the statement. Reading the other statements, some are preceded by DOS (Dept. of State), meaning, I suppose, that that is who is making that particular statement. Others are preceded by DHS (Dept. of Homeland Security). If there is no indication such as DOS or DHS, then who makes the other statements? The attorneys at the bottom?
Good article regarding Fitzpatrick from Mother Jones….
http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/11/walter-fitzpatrick-birther-treason-grand-jury-monroe-county
“Fitzpatrick’s supporters frequently cite his status as a retired Navy lieutenant commander as proof of his integrity and patriotism. What they fail to mention is that in 1990 he was court-martialed for financial negligence, a move that essentially ended his military career. ”
“Fitzpatrick is trying to appeal directly to the people through a grand jury comprised of average citizens who volunteer their time. Still, unless the jurors of Monroe County are truly rabid Obama haters, it seems unlikely that they will be persuaded—or that they even have the power to indict the president in the first place. Treason, after all, is a federal crime, not a county-level offense. When I asked a court employee whether the Monroe County grand jury has jurisdiction to indict a sitting president, she seemed rather baffled: “I wouldn’t think so. That would not go before a local court.” She observed that the grand jury won’t issue any decision on the case until December 7. But for any real criminal charges to go forward, the local district attorney would have to agree to take up the case, a move that any sane prosecutor would be reluctant to make.”
Black Lion,
Thanks for the links! Great service!
Cant you people see through the smokescreen,they have got you bickering over this stuff that will not make difference in a week when obama the usurper signs the sovereignty of the USA over to the UN. The NWO and the rothschilds have you right where they want you divide and conquer… keep you off the real issues at hand. SO that you wont know what hit you when the NWO takes effect. There has not been a real elected president since JFK. Both sides are involved with this and they are using the saul alinski rules for radicals.
Prime example is Lady Lynn forrester “de rothschild”, big supporter of Hillary. When Hillary lost, the life long democratic supporter switched sides, to John McCain? These elitists have no alliegence to any country. Mayer Amstel Rothschild said let me control a countrys monetary supply and I care not who makes the laws.
This is what is really going on and until your are able to open your eyes and stop bickering and come together as one country we are done. United we stand, divided we fall. The NWO has got us so divided with all their laws and political correctness. If they told you to jump off the bridge, would you do it because a GOP or democrat leader told you to do it? I thinks most would not jump, but theres still that group of people chanting yes we can even after all the evidences of the lies we have been told thus far.
What about all you DINOs who were holdiong up signs to bring the troops home when Bush was in office, what a bunch of losers you are. Hes sending over 30,000 more of our fine American soldiers and you have no balls whatsoever. Maybe if you had a flashback, imagining bush was still president, you might say something. BTW, cant you remember obama saying he was going to bring the troops home day 1 if he is elected. Does the NWO got your tongue? Or do you think that a community organizer is qualification enough to be a commander in chief of the most efficient military of the world. Where hes putting our soldiers on trial because a terrorist got a bloody lip. Pathetic people, truly pathetic. You cannot see the nose on your face. This is all being done to destroy our country and all you can do is take sides.
People who say things in defense of our country are not racist, but thats the best thing that the illuminati did, use the race card to further divide our country when they “placed” obama in office. WAKE UP, or soon you will be living in a country like the Germans did waking up to a fascist dictatorship – then it will be too late
Palin had a radio interview, a question on the Obama BC came up
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2703332
Transcript from HotAir http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/03/palin-obamas-birth-certificate-is-fair-game/comment-page-2/#comments
Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?
I think the public, rightfully, is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue ’cause I think there are enough members of the electorate who still want answers.
Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?
I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past associations and past voting record — all of that is fair game. You know, I’ve got to tell you, too: I think our campaign, the McCain/Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area. We didn’t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were and perhaps what their future plans were. And I don’t think that that was fair to voters to not have done our jobs as candidates and as a campaign to bring to light a lot of the things that now we’re seeing made manifest in the administration.
I mean, truly, if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama’s past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right?
Hey, you know, that’s a great point, in that weird conspiracy-theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son. And a lot of people say, “Well you need to produce his birth certificate! You need to prove that he’s your kid!” Which we have done. But yeah, so maybe we could reverse that and use the same [unintelligible]-type thinking on them.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by KatyinIndy: Eligibility Update: TN Grand Jury Presentation; Update: A Second Treason Allegation? http://tinyurl.com/yjnrzmk #tcot #gop #ocra #sgp…
New insanity filed by the even more desparate Orly…I guess she has decided that President Obama is not from Kenya anymore…Her delusions are getting more and more scary…
“With the new filing, she submitted a putative immigration form showing Barack Obama’s ethnic code listed as “Equatorial Guinea.” And she lashes out against a “well orchestrated effort … to assassinate my character,” saying she receives death threats on a daily basis.”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/new_orly_taitz_filing_in_dismissed_case_i_get_deat.php?ref=mp
from Dr C. over a Obama Conspiracy…
That in and of itself is not surprising or newsworthy, but the real shocker is what she disclosed in her most recent letter to the court! A copy of an investigative report shows that Barack Obama was not born in Kenya, but rather came from Equatorial Guinea! [For the geographically challenged -- Kenya is on the east coast of Africa and Equatorial Guinea is on the west coast.]
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Barnett_100-2_03119234627.pdf
You wonder if she will ever get a clue….
MGB says:
That’s what Obama did when this smear came out, and his victory attests to the effectiveness of his response.
The first and simplest opportunity to dispose of a frivolous and malicious lawsuit is a motion to dismiss, before answering the complaint.
MGB:
Again… I stopped calling after seven, all of whom said they had the films for 1961.
Your turn.
MGB:
But it is a LIE that Obama and/or his sister have ever claimed two different hospitals. And that’s what you have repeatedly insisted.
A LIE.
MGB:
It wasn’t an “unattributed quote.” I told you exactly where it came from. Since you recently pulled the weenie tactic of telling me to go look it up myself when I similarly asked you for a quote a context, let me show you how real grown-ups respond to such a request.
You will find the source document here. I suggest you read the whole thing. You might learn something.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17508463/StrunkDOS-GOV-ANSWER-17-20090423
See how that works?
Further, as to “who in the State Department made this statement?” You will find the document signed by MICHAEL F. HERTZ (Deputy Assistant Attorney General) and ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO (Deputy Branch Director).
Let’s think of it this way:
Suppose that Maya Soetoro did say that her brother was born in Queens Hospital to a high school reporter.
What does this prove?
Obama himself claims he was born at Kapi’olani Hospital.
Can you name the hospital at which your siblings were born? Heck, can you name the hospital at which you were born, right now, without checking any documents? I know I couldn’t, and I’m certainly not alone there.
But that’s immaterial, given that it seems the reporter didn’t get the name of the hospital from Maya at all.
MGB says:
December 3, 2009 at 5:44 pm
*The Main Library has one set of microfilms for the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star Bulletin that goes back to the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s. *
Thank you for posting that MGB. Now, anyone game to go look/hire someone to go look? Main Library, Honolulu. I think it has to be a birther.
MGB:
What’s to explain?
1) Ann Dunham absolutely did raise Obama as a single mom, apparently from pretty much the moment he was born.
2) Why would Obama’s honest admission that he was not sure about his parent’s marriage be relevant to anything? So he wasn’t sure? So what?
3) Married or not… the names of the parents on the COLB would be the same? What problem do you see there? Exactly?
4) The Vital Records Index actually does record a marriage between Obama Sr. and Dunham. This was one of those facts that Donofrio so courageously squeezed out of the Hawaii DoH.
5. None of this has anything to do with eligibility for the Presidency. So.. your intention here is what? To insult Obama’s dead mother?
Prove it yourself that you phoned. I have e-mailed.
Their response:
The Main Library has one set of microfilms for the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star Bulletin that goes back to the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s. Other Branches: Kaneohe Library, Kaimuki Library, and Pearl City Library have the microfilms for these newspapers. You should phone these braches because not all have a complete collection. The Honolulu Advertiser and Star Bulletin is listed under Serials Holdings List in the online catalogue and it gives the references as to the starting date of these papers in our collection. You can always phone us to get this information. Our phone no.: 586-3614. We have machines you can view the microfilms. If you would to make a print from the microfilm, it cost 15 cents. I hope this will help in your research.
Aloha
Serials Section
Hawaii State Library
478 S. King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813-2994
http://www.hspls.org/serials/serials.html
****
In addition, checking the online catalog shows that not all branches, as you claim, have the films for those two newspapers for 1961. (Mistakes are intact, as written to me.)
MGB:
Wrong again. MGB. There is no article in any paper that contains any statement from Maya Soetoro-Ng claiming any place other that Kapiolani Hospital as Obama’s birthplace. Maya has never once been quoted by anybody as saying he was born at Queens. Even the high school kid who wrote that article you refer to never says she said anything of the sort.
You must not have read the article, this was debunked over a year ago.
Since the kid never claimed Maya said it in the first place, who cares?
If you cannot show us a statement made by Maya that claims a birth at Queens Hospital (and it is a simple fact that you cannot) then your claim that she said so is a lie.
It is just another fake Birther factoid. And as we all know, once told a Birther lie never dies.
MGB says:
December 3, 2009 at 5:35 pm
*sam and sise: as you see, I am again getting your names confused. I meant to ask sise if he noticed I said “allegedly.” I tried to edit, but the system would not allow me to make the correction*
Yes, I do see and I say with all respect, take the evening off. Get a little break and come back swinging tomorrow.