Donofrio, Pidgeon on Quo Warranto; IPPT v. Chrysler at SCOTUS on TARP
Wednesday, December 9, 2009 update:
The Post & Email reported yesterday that the Supreme Court has scheduled a Conference this Friday for Indiana Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler (docket):
The action, whereby the U.S. Treasury, without authorization by Congress, used TARP funding to force Chrysler LLC into a debtor-client relationship, and then in using that to practically control the corporation in bankruptcy pleadings has raised several constitutional and legal issues on the action.
An amicus curiae brief was filed with this case in October, including the involvement of a number of advocacy groups and at least one leading constitutional scholar:
- Washington Legal Foundation
- Allied Educational Foundation
- Cato Institute
- George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law Dr. Todd J. Zwycki
Previously, a request before the Court for a stay of the bankruptcy action was denied in July.
Basically, any action taken on this case could be a harbinger for how any further Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings or quo warranto actions could be interpreted by the Court in this matter.
The question is raised: Did the Treasury Department act unconstitutionally in the manner in which it dispositioned certain federal monies?
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 update:
Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon recently spoke with Bob Unruh at WorldNetDaily.com (h/t @KatyinIndy):
As part of the demand for information about the authority used, Donofrio confirmed, there will be questions about Obama’s eligibility to be president. Donofrio contends that since by Obama’s own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a “natural born citizen” as required for the presidency.
The burden, then, would shift to Obama and his administration officials to document their constitutional authority for their decisions and their handling of taxpayer money.
If the president cannot document his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, his presidential task force had no authority to act at all, the case contends.
Pidgeon told WND the plaintiffs in the case are the former Chrysler dealers, and their interests will be paramount.
The goal is “to get them restored,” he said, and “put them back where they were before their contracts were rejected.”
“Our clients are not in this action as ‘birthers,’” he said, citing a term used for people who question Obama’s constitutional eligibility. “Our clients are here to seek redress for wrongs.”
But the case may open doors that have been closed in other disputes over Obama’s eligibility. Most previous cases, at one point or another, have been dismissed because the plaintiffs do not have “standing” – they have not suffered direct injury for which they have a reasonable expectation of seeking redress.
In the case of the dealers, they have suffered financial loss because of circumstances that developed with the government’s intervention in the auto industry.
Original story below the dashed line.
—-
In a Right Side of Life exclusive, I had reported (based on this Portland Civil Rights Examiner posting by Dianne Cotter) that attorneys Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon have, in fact, gotten together and have been retained by lead Plaintiff James Anderer and other Chrysler dealers to appeal on damages incurred in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale.
Further, the concept of quo warranto — an ancient “prerogative writ” — has been confirmed by Devvy Kidd’s recent telephone conversation with Mr. Donofrio as a petition by which he and Mr. Pidgeon will be challenging the Obama Administration under three counts.
According to Ms. Kidd’s interview, while § 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action states the following:
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
She was able to confirm with Mr. Donofrio that the above section is a bit of a “catch-all:”
Leo points out that the statute not only applies to eligibility, but also to the unlawful “exercise” of authority via public office. At the common law, quo warranto was not only used to challenge usurpation of office but also to challenge illegal government actions and the current quo warranto statute was written as a catch all in this regard. So Leo and Steve will bring two counts under 3501, eligibility and illegal use of Government funds. The second count refers to the use of TARP funds to facilitate the Chrysler Bankruptcy sale.
An important aspect of potential “specific injury” may not have been had by creditors, but dealers face substantially greater particular harm:
The 2d Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with this issue as raised by creditors of Chrysler in an appeal of the Sale transaction to which the dealers were not a party. In that decision, the Court of Appeals stated that the issue raised “interesting and unresolved issues”, but the appellants did not have standing based upon their limited injuries. The Chrylser dealers have the requisite injury – loss of their frnachises – to meet the standing requirements. They will raise the issue in the quo warranto petition before the DC District Court.
And it looks like those TARP monies could also play a part in the filings:
You may recall that former Treasury Secretary Paulson refused to use TARP funds to bail out the auto industry indicating that to do so was not proper under the statute. A Congressional bill to allow TARP funds to be used for that purpose failed in the Senate, but the Obama administration went forward with it anyway.
Donofrio and Pidgeon also plan a third quo warranto count based upon 16-3521(2) of the quo warranto statute…
Here’s what § 16-3521. Persons against whom issued; civil action (2) states:
A quo warranto may be issued from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in the name of the District of Columbia against -
…
(2) one or more persons who act as a corporation within the District of Columbia without being duly authorized, or exercise within the District of Columbia corporate rights, privileges, or franchises not granted them by law in force in the District of Columbia.
The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
As Ms. Kidd puts it:
In other words, the actions taken by the government were an illegal exercise of corporate authority. The government has acted as a political agent (acting as board of directors) against corporations using taxpayer money to restructure the auto industry under their vision.
In the posting, Mr. Donofrio emphasizes that he and Mr. Pidgeon represent the best interests of the dealers, leaving open the possibility of a settlement.
In reference to the bankruptcy deal, Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon shared with me that, per a recent article by Neil Roland of Automotive News, the House is crafting a new bill for the rejected dealers:
WASHINGTON — House leaders crafted a bill over the weekend that would provide third-party arbitration for rejected General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group dealerships using criteria more favorable to dealers than those proposed by the automakers last week.
The legislation, which is being forwarded to Senate leaders for consideration, would allow dealers who want to appeal their closures to “present any kind of relevant information during the arbitration,” a copy of the new bill shows.
The arbitrator is directed to consider the dealer’s experience, past profitability, current economic viability and the demography and geography of the local market, the legislation says.
“The arbitrator shall balance the interests of the covered dealership, the covered manufacturer and the public and shall decide, based on that balancing, whether or not the covered dealership should be reinstated,” the bill says.
Nevertheless, both attorneys say that the proposed legislation would not satisfy their client’s needs and that they will be moving forward with litigation. “Unless the legislation returns our clients to their franchise agreements as they were in effect prior to the Chrysler Bankruptcy,” they said, “we will be forced to press on in the courts.”
In other news related to Mr. Donofrio, his Hawaiian UIPA requests are on hold as he focuses on the above.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
TRSoL News (semi-automatically-generated headlines every day): News.TheRightSideOfLife.com
Photo courtesy BrightCove
[...] of Obama. The above quotations were taken directly from the article: please read to understand http://www.therightsideoflife.com/20…-of-authority/ Reply With Quote + Reply to Thread « Previous Thread | [...]
Today’s post about Beck ridiculing the “birthers” led me back to this post. There are 587 comments! I haven’t read them all, but read through some of the back and forth between Qwertyman and Linda. The following comment by Linda caught my attention:
Linda says:
December 13, 2009 at 6:21 pm
qwertyman says: Quote mining is not nice.
I did not ‘quote mine’ as you charge me to have, what I did was quote the Edw. III statute that defined what a naturtal born subject was at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Blackstone himself concurred with this definition in his Commentaries.
Further more, I gave the links for all readers to research for themselves and if anyone is ‘quote mining’ it is you. It is a long and exhastive commentary, as well are the other 2 links that it references to and they all come to the same conclusion,
Native does not equal natural born and as Kent put it, Natives are:
artificial persons created by law
Thus there can be nothing natural about a native born person’s citizenship, they aquire it through naturalization under US laws if they so desire.
This agrees with The Obama File’s archives that recognize the fact that there are actually three kinds of U.S. citizenship – natural born citizen (required for POTUS), native born citizen, and naturalized citizen.
Consider this. If Obama was so sure that “native born citizen” is considered to be, by Constitutional law, the same as “natural born citizen” (required for POTUS), then why on earth would he spend 1.5 million dollars hiding his COLB and other bona fide documents (which would most likely prove that he attended college in the U.S. as a foreign exchange student)?
Why all the secrecy?
Answer: he is hiding something – something BIG! Just like the Dems are hiding what’s in the health care bill. C-span requested recording the discussions and they got a big fat NO. Isn’t this highly disturbing?
This particular case (IMO) has the best chance of succeeding in the courts. God speed Mr. Pidgeon and Mr. Donofrio!
qwertyman says: The grandfather clause was designed with several of the Framers in mind, particularly Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the West Indies.
Can you cite a link or an archived historical reference for that? If not you are just regurjitating leftist propaganda that has no evidentiary standing in any court of law.
Nobody has ever said that that clause of the Constitution has been amended. What has been said over and over and over again is that your interpretation of what that clause means is incorrect, and has not been spoken with approval by a single member of Congress, judge, or legal scholar in America for the past century. The citizenship cases authoritatively interpreted both citizenship under the 14th Amendment and the natural born citizenship clause. As it was discussed interchangeably in Wong, it is considered a closed issue that a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen are one and the same. At the very least, there is no dispute about those born on US soil, as recently seen in the Ankeny case.
The grandfather clause was designed with several of the Framers in mind, particularly Alexander Hamilton, who was born in the West Indies.
To any and all ‘0’pologists’, (you know who you are), I purpose setting parameters of the debate;
1) Show proof or concede, in spite of the many convoluted interpretations of the various ‘citizenship cases’, Ark, Happersett, Elg, etc, that the 14th Amendment, nor any other Act, DID NOT Amend A2S1C5. (If you can not agree or accept the FACT that A2S1C5 has not been Amended then your intellectual dishonesty makes it apparent that you are not interested in the TRUTH and choose to disregard the Constitution.)
2) Accepting the premise that the office of the POTUS was intended to be filled by a person of the Body Politic, i.e., a Sovereign Citizen of the United States, and further, accepting that the NBC REQUIREMENT was/is intended as a National Security Provision, what effect did/does the ‘Grandfather Clause’ of the Original text have on the considerations of British Monarchial Citizenship Common Law versus the Natural Law Citizenship’s as expressed by Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Pufendorf, Grotius, Hobbs, Hume, Leibniz, Locke, and of course, Vattel, not to mention Sun Xu and Macchiavelli ? (Of course you will have to overcome your inclination to portray the Founders as ignorant uneducated religious fanatics with a myopic view of the world not too dissimilar to yours.)
3) And as a follow up, did/does the Declaration of Independence cut the Bonds of British Rule allowing the newly emerging Sovereignty of the United States to dictate it’s own terms of Citizenship?
brygenon,
OK. So, then, based on what you’ve just said, since neither one of us knows with 100% statistical certainty and we both admit the fact that we don’t know for sure that anyone associated with the FactCheck.org blog is a “political operative working for Obama’s campaign” (but I personally have seen nothing that specifically excludes them from being such), and you’re not calling me a liar, then I must ask:
What’s the point here, except to make a proverbial mountain out of a molehill?
I’m not backing off what I’ve reported, if that’s what you’re looking for.
-Phil
Phil says:
Let’s check the context: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/24/eligibility-update-factcheck-org-doesnt-do-forensics-nh-sos-and-certificates-british-policeman-on-eligibility/
Oh look Phil — you did spread the lie that the FactCheck reporters were political operative working for Obama’s campaign.
Call you a liar? Not exactly. What I did was call attention to the lie.
Bry,
Do you think that when you take what someone says out of context that that necessarily means they’re lying?
As you know, you can call me a liar all that you want to — I’ll simply treat it with a very large grain of salt, considering your past history on my site.
-Phil
Phil wrote:
Sounds like my reporting was entirely correct: “You chose to put on your blog that the FactCheck reporters were political operatives working for Obama’s campaign.”
That’s your excuse for spreading lies?
brygenon,
Firstly, I did not specifically claim that the FactCheck.org blog reporters were “political operatives” for Mr. Obama; this is a claim that TheObamaFile.com specifically named, and I included it in my posting as a means of context.
Similarly, I do not claim that they are not “political operatives;” I don’t specifically know, except to say the following (also in proper response to you):
It is interesting to note that it has only been certain individuals associated with a non-governmental Internet site — namely, FactCheck.org — that have ever physically examined the alleged COLB. Nobody else has. Regardless of whether or not they are “political operatives,” while everyone else — including most other reporters in the media — have only ever examined an online image, I find it interesting that only these individuals have actually dealt with the physical document.
Individuals such as yourself continue to promulgate the idea that — while it is true that only these individuals have ever inspected the physical alleged document — their observations in some way confirm the authenticity of the document, essentially by claiming that it’s a piece of paper with some sort of seal on it.
My questions have always been:
1. How do they know that the alleged document is legitimately from Hawaii?
2. What qualifies these individuals to know that what they’re looking at is legitimate and not a scam?
As I’ve briefly explained, above in this same response, you are promulgating the idea that somehow the FactCheck.org blog reporters know what they’re looking at. I say that they don’t know for sure unless they have a receipt for the procuring transaction or are otherwise able to authenticate the document with Hawaii.
And as far as their being political operatives, I don’t know if they are, for sure, or not. It doesn’t bother me one way or the other, except that such a potential bias could persuade them to not ask the right questions about documentation that they did allege to possess.
-Phil
Phil says:
Here’s my simple answer: Just show me where I represented them to be anything they are not, and I’ll either back up my position or retract.
Phil, you chose to put on your blog that the FactCheck reporters were political operatives working for Obama’s campaign. When I call you on it, you won’t back it up and you won’t retract. Instead, you try to divert attention by acting like I’m somehow responsible for something I did *not* put forth.
Phil, your behavior is inconsistent with your claim to be pursuing truth.
brygenon,
In reality, I wasn’t referring to anyone but commenters on my site. However, if you’d like to bring the FactCheck.org blog into the mix, that’s perfectly fine by me.
Simply show me where any of the individuals involved with the FactCheck.org blog are even remotely qualified to forensically inspect documents. Simple request; should require a simple answer.
Furthermore, it’s not a lie to say that said individuals associated with the FactCheck.org blog are not qualified to perform forensic document analysis.
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
-Phil
” brygenon says:
December 15, 2009 at 5:12 am
Linda says:
brygenon,
You can not read one part of the law and disreagrd the parts of the law
That’s what you, Linda, did, and what I proved you did. You found a reference that listed several ways of acquiring citizenship. Barack Obama acquired his under the first of those ways, “A. By Place of Birth”. You omitted that part to (mis)quote a clause under “B. By Parentage”.
Understand Linda, when you snip it just means the text won’t appear in your follow-up. It’s still there in your cited reference, pages 137-139
http://books.google.com/books?id=rHs8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA137”
This appears to be Linda’s MO.
Sue,
Agree. I expect that they will file something. What is going to be interesting is the argument in support of their standing to bring the quo warranto.
If they can get the case past the subject matter jurisdiction and standing evaluations in the D.C. District Court, then all the issues addressed in debate herein will be settled one way or another.
Linda says:
December 15, 2009 at 12:43 pm
*Sue, The reference to American Law (1903) is evidence of the claims I have made that WKA was a corrupt decision that was not based on the laws of the time, i.e. judges going rogue and remaking the law.*
Nonsense. The court was interpreting the 14th amendment.
People say “the judges went rogue” and “they were remaking the law” every time the court makes a decision they don’t like.
Wong Kim Ark – fresh as the day it was issued.
So much internal inconsistency here.
For starters, your links there are proposals from the Institute of International Law. They were submitted for consideration by governments. They don’t constitute law, they aren’t commentaries on the law, they’re recommendations by an outside interest group.
And Wong was corrupt. Putting aside the fact that five other justices signed on to the majority opinion, your evidence of corruption is that since you believe that Chester A. Arthur was ineligible for the presidency because of his father’s status, Justice Gray, the author of the opinion, knew that he was appointed by an ineligible president. Course, Leo claims that nobody had heard about this question of Arthur’s father before last year.
Beyond that, Gray’s opinion is rife with support for his finding that anybody born on US soil, with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats, invading armies, and Native American tribes, are natural born citizens. You just disagree with the outcome, and so you call it corruption. Five other justices of the Supreme Court, all with lifetime appointments, were similarly corrupt? Were there people 17 years after Gray’s appointment waiting to spring on the Justice and declare him appointed by an ineligible president?
This seems to spring from the same sort of view that would lead somebody to say that every single judge, member of Congress and current legal scholar are engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to stay silent about the true meaning of the natural born citizen clause, leaving it to people like yourself in South Dakota who “weren’t taught the same way you city folks are.” Everybody’s indoctrinated but yourself. Of course, your solution is to go to a pre-Civil War conception of citizenship. I for one think that the Dred Scott case was the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court, but if you approve of that court’s definition of citizenship, good on you. I doubt you’ll find many who agree.
You’ve seen it many times. You just declare it corrupt. It seems to be a pattern with you: if you don’t like it, it must be the result of CORRUPTION AND CONSPIRACY!
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 658 (1898)
Your theory’s been blasted to smithereens for over a century, you just refuse to acknowledge it. You instead attempt to call a six-justice majority opinion the product of corruption, and that every single law school professor, civics textbook, member of Congress and judge are also being corrupt in refusing to recognize your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as definitive.
Sue, The reference to American Law (1903) is evidence of the claims I have made that WKA was a corrupt decision that was not based on the laws of the time, i.e. judges going rogue and remaking the law.
NBC could never have been one born to a foreign father. The simple fact as the law shows, one born to a foreign father was himself a foreigner.
qwerty, you will not hear ‘just one thing he has done against the Uk or Kenya’, because I have never referred to specifics. What I and others have referred to is foreign intrigues.
And as requested all along, if you are so certain that your definition of NBC is so correct…
then just show us the definitive amended laws that blast all our research to smithereens. What are you holding back for?
About the same time that it became acceptable behavior to say that our citizenship laws have been usurped for 150 years (apparently Linda wants to return to a pre-Civil War conception of citizenship), and also around the time when it became acceptable to say that every single judge, member of Congress and legal scholar in the country are conspiring to keep silent on the true definition of natural born citizen to promote a political agenda.
Obama’s father’s background has been public knowledge for years. Do you really think that any court will say that President Obama is retroactively declared ineligible for the presidency based on something that everybody knew about when they voted on election day?
Why is it that the vast majority of people who have this theory about what natural born citizen means also believe that Obama’s birth certificate and birth announcements were faked or forged or fraudulent? Why is it that every time anybody who has this conception of citizenship discusses policy, they bitterly oppose absolutely anything the Democratic Party is favoring?
Heck, I’d be interested to hear one thing, just one thing, that President Obama has done since taking office that has benefited the UK or Kenya at the expense of the US. Some clear example you can point at and say “See! His loyalties are to the British, even though his only connection with them is that his father belonged to a country once colonized by them!”
John,
It will be interesting to see if these proposed lawsuits by Pidgeon and Donofrio even get filed. Guess we will all just have to wait and see.
Linda,
http://www.archive.org/details/resolutionsofins00inst
“LAW AND PROCEDURE VOLUME VII (1903)
WILLIAM MACK And HOWARD P. NASH
THE AMERICAN LAW BOOK COMPANY
1.Children Of ALIENS. The child of a citizen father and of an alien mother is a citizen; but one born of an alien father and of a citizen mother is not a citizen.”
Unless I have misunderstood your above comment, you are basically saying that President Obama is not even a U.S. citizen because President obama’s father was an alien?
Linda says:
December 15, 2009 at 4:15 am
*I’ll give you this though, your desperation is amusing. Thanks for the chuckle.*
There is nothing more desperate than resorting to:
“Gray was corrupt, appointed by Chester Arthur.”
“Ankeny case was full of corruption.”
“It utterly makes no sense, it is a blatent cover-up.”
That’s it, claim “corruption” when you disagree with a decision. But you haven’t changed the fact that WKA and Ankeny are now part of the case law, along with the 14th amendment and the details of what consititutes citizenship in the USC 8 code sections. Your amateur legal style of “just throw them more colonial writings and citations” is useless against them.
Linda says:
I implied no such thing. What you are saying now is both false and irrelevant.
I did not ask if you approved of the Court’s opinion. You called it “corrupt”. Where is the evidence of corruption?
What we have hear is you making up a charge of corruption with no evidence. When did that become acceptable behavior?
Sue,
Just got in from another night on the “ghost town” streets between 0000 hrs and 0500 hrs. Again only saw about four cars, two of which are the newspaper delivery guys we see every night, and a couple of tractor trailer rigs, and one repo man, an ex-cop from Virginia out of Cincinnati. They didn’t get “our” Family Dollar last night.
Whether Obama’s attorneys actually know if he is not eligible or not, doesn’t matter. I think they would not want him to say or produce anything, because there is no way to be sure just how the court will define “natural born citizen.” If they define it as a person born in the States to two U.S. citizens, then Obama may have a problem. If it turns out Obama was born in Kenya, Obama has a problem.
Judge Carter’s decision, the way I read it, seems to throw that case out based upon lack of standing to bring it. I throw my vote toward the losing presidential candidates as the best ones to claim standing to bring a quo warranto.
If it gets to D.C. District Court, I don’t think anyone can predict how that court will define “natural born citizen.” If they look at it contemporaneous with the time the Constitution was drawn up, I’d vote for born in the U.S. with two U.S. citizen parents.
It’s okay to disagree, because nobody has a crystal ball to know, except maybe courts that deny a mandamus writ, to someone legally entitled to it, based upon the reasoning that the petitioner WILL have a “future” remedy in 4-6 months. Those are very special apolitical judges with God-like ESP.
How interesting that Leo had the time to write an “expert” analysis on the Indiana Pension Fund case but has not yet found the time to prepare his own filing…
brygenon,
You implied that the discussion of WKA was not in the opinion. It Was.
The court also cites Congressional records, but uses the excuse that the plantiffs did not submit them, so they do not cite them. However, they do go out of their way find sources for their english common law theory, that they certainly would have to had looked, up as their argument for their decision.
It utterly makes no sense, it is a blatent cover-up. As any rational thinking person knows, where politics & government are concerned aka ‘Watergate’, its the cover-up that is held accountable for the corruption, not the actual corruption itself.
Linda says:
To avoid any misunderstanding, I quoted what you actually did say.
Don’t confuse the issues. For months we obots have been explaining what the controlling precedent is and what it means for Obama’s eligibility. Then a unanimous three-judge panel of a state appeals court told you the same thing. The issue on which I’m challenging you is not your legal analysis, but your allegation of corruption.
I don’t see how that motivated nor excuses fabricating an accusation of corruption.
Linda says:
I did not ask for more amateur legal analysis. You described it as “corrupt”, a very serious charge, if true. Where’s the evidence?
brygenon,
You also assume my beef with the Ankeny decision is soley targeted at your messiah.
As I have stated in the past, but I guess it bears repeating, I am in the fight for the Constitution & the our nation’s sovereignty, not for partisan politics.
I stated the evidence of corruption that was quoted in the Ankeny case:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China…
But this was not before the Indiana court cited this:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts….Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12
But what the court omits is the fact that the Minor case cites the law of nations.
So, my statement stands on its own merit with the evidence I have brought forward. The Indiana court disregarded the Congressional records, they seem to have purposely disregarded the definition the Minor case used & went to foreign law to ‘mine’ for a definition for US natural born citizen that would serve, what one can only conlude, their personal political views, but a better question to ask is, why did they omit the Elk case?
Because Grey in writing the WKA deciding opinion, overturned his & his own courts decision in the Elk case.
Linda says:
That’s what you, Linda, did, and what I proved you did. You found a reference that listed several ways of acquiring citizenship. Barack Obama acquired his under the first of those ways, “A. By Place of Birth”. You omitted that part to (mis)quote a clause under “B. By Parentage”.
Understand Linda, when you snip it just means the text won’t appear in your follow-up. It’s still there in your cited reference, pages 137-139
http://books.google.com/books?id=rHs8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA137
Isn’t it great playing judge? You get to win every time. Alas, your jurisdiction is your own imagination. In the real Congress and the real Courts, edibility deniers lose every single time.
Already answered by obots, but even better: a real court explained the WKA precedent; see: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf And Linda, when you call it “corrupt”, that tells us nothing about the Court, and everything we need to know about you.
Linda says:
Linda, you had written:
The case is Ankeny v. Daniels, before the Court of Appeals of Indiana. I asked where is the evidence of corruption, and obviously you have none.
When did fabricating accusations become acceptable behavior?
brygenon,
You can not read one part of the law and disreagrd the parts of the law and the parts of the Congressional records that define the contents of that law. That is where you fall short in your efforts to make your case.
If WKA was the conclusive decision, then why was Elg redeemed her natural born citizenship, why was WKA not deemed a natural born citizen and why was Elk not granted citizenship?
Linda says:
Ah, good tactic: snip the quotes and the link. Make it inconvenient for people to check. It’s Cyclopedia of law and procedure, Volume 7 By William Mack, Howard Pervear Nash, pages 137-139
http://books.google.com/books?id=rHs8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA137
” III. CITIZENSHIP HOW ACQUIRED
A. By Place of Birth — 1. WITHIN TERRITORIAL CONFINES — a. General Rule. Children born within a country, of parents who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizen of such country; and this includes children born within the limits of the United States of Chinese parents domiciled in this country, but it does not necessarily include the children of born in this country of Indian parents.”
Linda there’s a fundamental principle of law that you seem not to understand: You don’t always get your way. You may not like U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but you cannot overturn a prevailing Supreme Court precedent with e-tantrums.
brygenon, you stated: “Where was the evidence of any corruption?”
It was in the very fact that Grey was appointed by Usurper Chester Arthur and the fact the Grey overturned his own ruling in Elk wherein he relied on the law of nations & the Congressional records of the 1866 Act & the 14th Amendment.
Phil says:
That’s your excuse???
Reality, Phil: Two reporters for the University of Pennsylvania’s FactCheck.org inspected and photographed Obama’s COLB, so you featured an article accusing them of being political operatives working for Obama’s campaign. If you are in a quest for truth, as you say, why put those lies about the reporters on your blog?
Ah, well, when I suggest that lying is unacceptable behavior, I’m not trying to debate your authority over your blog.
The part she quotes is under the next section, “B. By Parentage”. President Obama was born in the U.S., so he was born a citizen as described in section “A”.
Linda gets debunked, this time by her own reference.
I do?
A. quotes part of the 14th as well as the law of nations and B. defines who those parents are, so in context of the law, Obama would not have been a citizen, even after the WKA decision. WKA did not change the law, it has been used to usurp it for 111 years.
I’ll give you this though, your desperation is amusing. Thanks for the chuckle.
Linda says:
What a mess. First, Linda has her links interchanged. More importantly, she omitted the part that applies to President Obama:
” III. CITIZENSHIP HOW ACQUIRED
A. By Place of Birth — 1. WITHIN TERRITORIAL CONFINES — a. General Rule. Children born within a country, of parents who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizen of such country; and this includes children born within the limits of the United States of Chinese parents domiciled in this country, but it does not necessarily include the children of born in this country of Indian parents.”
The part she quotes is under the next section, “B. By Parentage”. President Obama was born in the U.S., so he was born a citizen as described in section “A”.
Linda gets debunked, this time by her own reference.
“Linda says:
December 15, 2009 at 12:51 am
Sue, Unless the A1 & A2 of the Constitution have been amended and unless the 14th has been amended without my knowledge, I certainly do.
The problem with your rebutles is that you offer nothing to substantiate your case that is not refutable by actual law, case law or Congressional record.”
I simply asked a question, no rebuttal involved whatsoever.
Sue, Unless the A1 & A2 of the Constitution have been amended and unless the 14th has been amended without my knowledge, I certainly do.
The problem with your rebutles is that you offer nothing to substantiate your case that is not refutable by actual law, case law or Congressional record.