Stephen Pidgeon Involved with Law Enforcement Activity; Update: Police Activity Occurred, WND Reports
Update: WorldNetDaily is now reporting:
“There’s definitely observation,” attorney Stephen Pidgeon told WND. “Maybe observation in anticipation of making an arrest.” …
Pidgeon told WND today he contacted his personal defense attorney, and also was in contact with the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization advocating for civil liberties and religious and personal freedoms.
Pidgeon is affiliated with the organization and told WND that there would be a letter sent inquiring about the surveillance.
He said he first became aware of the situation when his wife left their rural home early in the day and reported there were three law enforcement vehicles parked nearby, along with three black Suburban-style vehicles carrying camouflage-wearing agents, apparently from Homeland Security.
Pidgeon said he has been “outspoken” about the Obama administration and its validity due to the eligibility questions, but didn’t realize he was “qualifying as an enemy of the state.”
He immediately reached out to a number of individuals through e-mail.
“My only protection is to contact the people I know,” he said.
Officials of the Department of Homeland Security did not return multiple WND messages seeking a comment on the situation. Officials with the Snohomish sheriff’s office and the Everett city police department said they didn’t know anything about it.
“Where Homeland Security is concerned, obviously there are people working for the Obama administration with little consideration for free speech,” Pidgeon told WND.
He said when he left his home, he had a sheriff’s vehicle “marking every turn that I made.”
“There’s definitely observation,” he said.
“The fact of the matter is that we have taken the position and it is consistent with Orly Taitz’ position that Barack Obama failed to establish his bona fides by the election on November 4,” he said. “We alleged under Democratic National Committee rules he had a burden to establish to the DNC’s satisfaction his eligibility. He never did.
“As a consequence the burden remains on him. He didn’t meet the burden of proving his eligibility to hold the office.”
He said voters cannot simply rewrite the Constitution’s eligibility requirements in a presidential vote. For one thing, only 52 percent voted for Obama, and the Constitution requires approval from two-thirds of the states for an amendment.
He also cited U.S. senators and congressman who have credited the online “fact” organizations such as snopes or factcheck for authenticating Obama’s eligibility.
“Any senator who would rely on snopes or factcheck to establish a judicial opinion whether or not this person has documented his eligibility is a fool,” Pidgeon said. And citing a federal judge who said the issue of Obama’s eligibility already had been “twittered,” he said that is “tantamount to malpractice.”
Several hours after Pidgeon returned WND’s call, he called again.
“We are definitely under surveillance and it’s coordinated with Homeland Security,” he said.
He said one of his associates had been followed from his home to the law firm’s downtown office, and the associate was stopped just outside the building.
“The police officer claimed he didn’t have brake lights working,” Pidgeon said. “But he does.”
Also, InvestigatingObama is further updating:
Update: 3/26 11:55am CT - An update to this story including comments from Stephen Pidgeon may be found in theWorldNetDaily.com story, “Eligibility lawyer says Homeland Security shadowing him,” by Bob Unruh. I.O. had notified Unruh, The Right Side of Life (see story) and others of yesterday’s events. I would conjecture that Pidgeon is likely to be speaking with netradio broadcasters about these subjects, soon.
Update: 3/26 am CT - From trusted source, Carmen, via email:
The person whose son was harassed, arrested, and jailed (apparently for his ceasing to answer certain questions, after Miranda rights were read) is Lt. Col. Don Sullivan, of North Carolina. The arrest was made in North Carolina yesterday as his son was coming into town to visit. Col. Sullivan went to the Clerk of Court to pay the fee, stating that his son was not a flight risk. The fee for release until the actual court date was reduced to $2,000. Court date is May 30.
Also yesterday, a black suburban with a “State Police” sticker was parked near Col. Sullivan’s place of business.
Sullivan has previously challenged Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility in court, case: Sullivan v. Marshall (NC Secretary of State and State Board of Elections). That case was dismissed. He is involved in Pidgeon’s planned national Grand Jury investigation of Barack Obama. Prior to yesterday’s incidents, Sullivan had also made a peronal inquiries of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which brought about a visit with the Secret Service.
Appreciating Don Sullivan’s dligence and determination, I intend to discuss these matters further with him and invite him to join us for an interview on The Sentinel Radio Network.
Via InvestigatingObama, attorney Stephen Pidgeon, litigant for Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed, is suspecting that he is in “immiment danger of arrest” by the Department of Homeland Security:
From: [email address of Stephen Pidgeon]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:00 PM
To: Carmen
Cc: [numerous recipients]
Subject: Stephen Pidgeon in imminent danger of arrest by Homeland SecurityI am writing this now as three black suburbans with HS personnel in camo are moving in to my neighborhood. I suspect arrest here shortly. In the event that you do not hear from me by tomorrow morning, please continue to contact by me email, as we will try to monitor. If not, contact Cesar Velasquez in Bellevue, WA (a Washington lawyer) for status.
Stephen Pidgeon
According to a post on FreeRepublic.com,
Just received this in my in-box; email addresses verified
Stephen Pidgeon in imminent danger of arrest by Homeland Security Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:26 PM
From: “Carmen ” To: “‘Carmen ‘” Cc: [numerous recipients]
I just received this directly from Constitutional Attorney Steven Pidgeon who was working on cases to determine the natural born citizen status of Obama. Prayers are in order for his Safety.
If anyone has contacts, pls notify them.
Carmen
Update: InvestigatingObama reports the following:
Update: 3/25, 4:29pm CT - Email from Stephen Pidgeon’s 2nd email address:
Yes, this is true. We are currently being tailed by Snohomish County Sheriffs and the Everett Police Dept. They are also tracking my associates.
Question had been emailed to Pidgeon:Stephen, is the report of the black suv from HS and the men in camo true, then?
An email from your other account was sent to Carmen, who sent it out to others including me.
Please reply as soon as convenient, thanks. Blessings.
Arlen
PS: Carmen also relates that another citizen’s grand jury colleague has seen the same thing in his neighborhood and the son of another was arrested peculiarly, last night or this morning. — ??
____________I.O.____________
Update: 3/25, 4:20pm CT - At 3:50pm, I received an email from another address used by Stephen Pidgeon. In this message, also apparently from Mr. Pidgeon, with a valid looking signature footer, merely states, “I have lost my primary email account for purposes of making contact. I am checking on the changeup now.”I also spoke with Carmen, who states that another associate of Pidgeon in his soon to be engaged, Citizen’s Grand Jury investigation of Barack Obama and his eligibility as Commander in Chief has also seen black SUV(s) very recently, in his neighborhood. Also, the son of another on this project was arrested this morning or last night, for something to do with his license plate (out of state). He was arrested after he would not answer questions, this after his Miranda rights were apparently read, and was assigned a $50,000 bail.
Update: I have received further information from a close contact with Mr. Pidgeon with whom I’ve corresponded over the last several months on other issues. The following is what this individual had to say about today’s (3/25) activities:
He did not get arrested – I had lunch with him to find out what the hell is/was up. Let’s just say, there is a very, very high level of in your face police activity around him, and his office building…
Before I met with Stephen for lunch, I drove out to see what was up in Snohomish, and walked up to the police building and they had a sign on the door stating that they have moved. I did see the black SUVs – but no camo clad dudes. I left – drove about a block and one of the black SUV’s started to pull out. I found myself behind a cop car, he turned off, and another one pulled in behind me and followed me to the town cut off – once I crossed the bridge, and got into Everett, a city cop pulled in behind me, and followed me to Stephens office, and pulled me over in front of his building – said I had a light out (I did) he took my license and ran it – the stop was less than a minute.
We walked over to a subway to grab a quick bite – we were tailed on each block by cops. While we were eating, a very big dude came in – I got in line behind him and could see that he had a gun in his back belt… he left, and cops kept driving back and forth in front of the subway- then a security dude came up to the window, and just stood and watch us – we finished lunch, and once again, cops on every corner – back at his building, another dude with dark glasses – I said hello, and he just nodded and smiled….
Is he just being paranoid – No, I have known him for almost 5 years now – and he is just not the type. Look, ever since I’ve been shooting off my mouth about family rights, commies suck, and this that and everything else, I’ve had people park in front of my house taking pics of me getting into my car, and taking pics of me driving my truck – It’s just another intimidation tactic that people use to stifle your Rights to speak freely…
If the pinheads really wanted to find out about me, they could just look at the 3 successful FBI background checks, or the successful ATF check… lol.
Let’s all say it unison shall we “Socialism Sucks”
Developing…
-Phil
Concerning
In Response to What Are The Possible Reasons Obama Would NOT Provide An Authentic 1961 Hawaii Birth Certificate?
Here’s my issue in this, Ignoring his birthplace and long form yada yada. The law reads ” you must be Natural Born and only a citizen of the USA ” just to qualify for the office of president. To be “Natural Born” Both parents must be American citizens and can not be a citizen of any other country. (ie: a non-citizen couple comes to America and has a child here. Yes, that child is a citizen. However, it is not natural born.) In his 1st book it is claimed that the father, Mr Soetoro, in question is a citizen of Kenya and thus a citizen of the UK. British law reads that any and all children born anywhere to UK citizens are themselves UK citizens by default. This appears to disqualify our President from the office on 2 counts. Both himself and his father are citizens of the UK.
In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Furthermore, Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) and lastly, Acquisition of Citizenship of the UK & Colonies
Under the 1948 Act, CUKC status was acquired by:
* birth in the UK or a colony (exceptions for children of ‘enemy aliens’ and diplomats). The immigration status of the parents was irrelevant.
* naturalisation or registration in the UK or a colony or protectorate
* legitimate descent from a CUKC father for children born elsewhere. Only the first generation acquired British nationality AUTOMATTICLY. Second and subsequent generations could do so only if born outside the Commonwealth (or Ireland) and registered within 12 months of birth or if the father was in Crown Service.
* incorporation of territory (no persons ever acquired CUKC this way from 1949)
* declaration
* marriage
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.
Dallas surely cannot imagine that “The People’s Draft [Kenyan] Constitution: 2007“, Wikipedia, and parliamentary debate are an adequate response to serious questions about his extraordinary claims. As we know, congressional debates are only marginally more reliable than Factcheck. I had hoped at least for some innocent syntactical fun from Dallas when he tried to disconnect turkeys from Thanksgiving. To be fair, I would say it can’t be done rather than it’s beyond his powers. Maybe Dallas repudiates his turkey text. Perhaps he’s working on it. In the meantime:
“I did take note that you did not support your previous interpretation of the Section 87 (K/C) with any qualifying link. Dallas
The Republican Constitution of Kenya: Historical Background and Analysis, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jul., 1965), pp. 878-949
by Chanan Singh, Judge of the High Court of Kenya
Chanan Singh…graduate with a degree in Economics from London University in 1940…qualified as a barrister. On leaving employment he opened practice as an advocate of the High Court of Kenya…In 1952 he was elected to Parliament (then the Legislative Council.In 1964 Chanan Singh resigned from Parliament and took up the office of Puisne Judge of the High Court of Kenya. He remained at this post till his death in 1977.
Page 947
The main provisions of the Law on citizenship can be summarised as follows:
Citizenship by operation of law
The following persons are citizens of Kenya:
(i) A person born in Kenya before Independence, if one of his parents was also born in Kenya.
(ii) A person born outside Kenya before Independence, if his father becomes a citizen under the preceding provision.
Paragraphs (i) and (ii) apply only to those who were on December 11, 1963 citizens of U.K. and Colonies or British protected persons.
(iii) A person born in Kenya after December 11, 1963, but not (a) if his mother is a non-citizen and his father a foreign diplomat, nor (b) if his father is a citizen of a country at war with Kenya.
(iv) A person born outside Kenya after December 11, 1963 if his father is a citizen.
Dallas made claims about the Obamas based entirely on his interpretation of Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution: that two dates, the 11th and the 12th of December, operated on separate categories of persons on these two separate days, and in two separate ways.
“1-Born in Kenya CUKC Dec.11 (retains) CUKC
1-Born in Kenya BPP Dec.12 (becomes) citizen Kenya
2-Born outside Kenya Dec.11 (retains) CUKC
2-Born outside Kenya Dec.12 (becomes) citizen Kenya” Dallas
The analysis of Section 87 by a judge of the Kenyan High Court completely trashes Dallas’ interpretation and therefore his claims. Section 87 only creates citizens of Kenya and does nothing else. Not a sufficient rebuttal for Dallas ? Ok try the following expertly researched monograph, which corroborates Judge Singh:
Citizenship and immigration in Post-War Britain By Randall Hansen http://tinyurl.com/cc6ynr
“The Kenyan Constitution gives no guarantees to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies…it provides no guarantees to anyone not acquiring Kenyan citizenship…The British statutes also contain no promises…”
Defining British citizenship By Rieko Karatani provides supporting context http://tinyurl.com/ccee5o
In citing as evidence debates in the UK Parliament on the British Kenyan Independence Bill Dallas seems to be unaware his quotes contradict themselves:
a NEW CITIZENSHIP DATES were given TO THE CUKCS by the Parliament of Kenya and Constitutionn {Kenya decides for Britishers ?]
b “Acts of our [British] Parliament [after independence] do not extend to Kenya as part of its law” [Dallas cites the 1964 UK Nationality Act]
c “it is normal for the [British] legislation conferring independence” [remember Dallas: "do not extend to Kenya as part of its law"]
d What authority gives Kenya the right to change citizenship of British protected People? BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL 1964 [Which BNA 1964 ? 682 or 1391 ? Neither applicable. Both enacted after Kenyan Independence in 1963 ? They give authority to Kenya ? How can 1964 laws affect Obama's birth ?]
What part of “It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals are“, the legal position of both Britain and Kenya, does Dallas not understand ? The single authority Dallas gives for his “NEW CITIZENSHIP DATES [whatever they are]…given TO THE CUKCS” is the Kenyan Constitution, which had no authority in the matter: if it did, why did the Kenyan Constitution not set “NEW CITIZENSHIP DATES” for Indian and Pakistani citizenships using that same authority ? Why did their status as British citizens before and after Independence never change ? As before, we can’t expect that for precise and awkward questions Dallas will find coherent answers or reputable sources: he will just paraphrase the claim.
If Dallas’ non-existent sources are his best shot then Dallas’ claims are worse than illusory; unless he re-parses the text of Section 87, which is the entire basis of his claims, then Dallas cannot save his turkey from its inevitable fate.
-Too Bad you are unable to read clearly Who Are you Kidding…
Must I shout?(The Citizenship DATES changed for citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) (CUKCs) Perhaps you didn’t
see my other post, or perhaps you didn’t understand. I won’t explain again unless you (will) change your tone next time.(?)
As your tone is becoming increasingly arrogant. I thought
this was a civilized debate and even a learning session on
a relatively complicated issue. If this is going to get uncivilized (and you know what I mean)Then I will withdraw from
commenting on your posts. Nevertheless,for now I’ll give
you the benefit of the doubt and try to explain my position
once more. Have your bifocals or reading glasses on? Or in
your case, Thinking cap on?(wink) GOOD! Here we go.
Original text of Section 87, Kenyan Constitution:
Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December,
1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British
protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December,
1963
Understand this First:
Prior to Kenya’s independence, in 1963 there were different citizens living within the Colonies and Protectorate or
Protected States. Some were Britishsubjects, others were
Commonwealth Citizens, British subjects without Citizenship
(BSWC) British Protected citizens (BPP) and citizens of the
United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCS). These citizens had
citizenships (or citizenship rights) ‘before’ the enactment
of the Kenya Constitution.
WE know that the BNA act of 1948 gave citizenship of the UKC (or CUKC)to anyone “ born within” the United Kingdom and Colonies
on or ater the date of commencement of the act. So, until the Independence of Kenya in 1963 these citizens of the UKC,
British Subjects, BPP, Commonwealth Citizens and BSWC,
maintained these various citizenships or rights.
When Kenya became independent in 1963 “NEW CITIZENSHIP DATES”
were given TO THE CUKCS by the Parliament of Kenya and Constitution. Their prior date of citizenshiphad been 1948
from the BNA. What the legislature effectually did was give the
CUKC a NEW “date” of Citizenshipin Kenya, Dec. 11, 1963
however,they RETAINED their original CUKC status.
(Your Turkey analogy, In 1948 A turkey was a turkey in the North
Pole, but on Dec. 11, 1963 that turkey was still a turkey in the North Pole and now,South Pole. Only the date and place had changed.
Supporting documents:
Retention of existing citizenship
14. Every person who was a citizen immediately before the effective
date retains the same citizenship status as from that date.
http://kenya-constitution.com/chapter4.html
This is the People’s Constitution, a newer version of the 1963 K/C.
Offering interpretation and insight to Sect.87 of the Kenya Constitution (K/C).
KENYA INDEPENDENCE BILL
HL Deb 28 November 1963 vol 253 cc754-814
1. Britain had Constitutional Arrangements, Provisional comments
and Input into Kenya’s Constitution:
On past occasions Members of your Lordships’ House have shown great
interest in the constitutional arrangements to be made for Kenya,
and these have been the subject of debate on more than one occasion, especiallyafter the 1962 Lancaster HouseConference and
again in July of this year.
No doubt, some of your Lordships will wish to comment on the final
Constitutional settlement during this debate.….Two clauses which describethe position in our law butalso at the provisions
regulating Kenya citizenship which will appear in the Kenya Constitution itself. A full account of what those provisions will contain is set out in the Report to the recent Conference,..
2. Parliament of Kenya Fully Sovereign to Enact it’s own Laws:
Acts of our Parliament do not extend to Kenya as part of its law,
and the Parliament of Kenya is a fully sovereign Legislature which
is subject only to the restrictions imposed on it by the Kenya Constitution..
3.Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies was Not Taken Away:
Your Lordships will observe that in this Bill we have found it
convienient to split up the topic into separate sections, the first
making certain modifications of the British Nationality Acts consequential upon Kenya’s attaining independence and acquiring
its own citizenship; and the second defining categories of people
who, even though they may become Kenya citizens,do not thereby
have their United Kingdom citizenship taken away from them.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1963/nov/28/kenya-independence-bill
Note although Great Britain had many constitutional inputs and comments teh Kenya Parliament was teh ultimate decision maker.
A NEW CITIZENSHIP “ and” DATE was given to the British Protected
Persons (BPP). Anytime a part of the Commonwealth achieved independence,a “fresh citizenship” was created. The British Protected Person status is lost and replaced by citizen of Kenya status.
1.Proof :What authority gives Kenya the right to change citizenship
of British protected People?
BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL
HC Deb 05 February 1964 vol 688 cc1291-6
Within the Commonwealth there are a number of separate citizenships, each of which makes a person a British subject or Commonwealth citizen in the law of the United Kingdom. Every
time any part of the Commonwealth achieves independence,
a fresh citizenship of this kind is created, and it is normal for
the legislation conferring independence on such a country to
contain provisions to the effect that citizens of the United
Kingdom and Colonies who” acquire” the citizenship of the new
country shall lose their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies unless they, or their fathers or their fathers ‘fathers,
were born, naturalised or registered in the United Kingdom or a remaining colony.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1964/feb/05/british-nationality-bill#S5CV0688P0_19640205_HOC_326
2. British Protected Person status lost upon Kenya Independence:
Consequences of Independence:
BPP status was normally lost automatically upon acquisition of the
nationality of the country with which the person was connected. In
some cases any person with BPP status connected to that territory
lost BPP status, even if they did not acquire the citizenship of the
country at independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_protected_person
(Using your turkey analogy, 1948 turkey is a turkey but on December
12,1963, turkey become T. Rooster. BPPs become a brand new citizens of Kenya.
PS. I did take note that you did not support your previous
interpretation of the Section 87 (K/C) with any qualifying link. {Thereby} and {and} are hereby removed from your previous interpretation?
“I challenge this statement. Do you have a link qualifying your interpretation.” Dallas
Dallas: did you grow up speaking English from birth ? Either your ability to comprehend the English language is somehow challenged or you’re foisting an April Fools’ prank. Let me explain:
Original text of Section 87, Kenyan Constitution:
Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
Dallas‘ text:
1 Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. [period]
2 or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
Means for Dallas: This Constitution makes two kinds of citizens: British on the 11th, and Kenyans on the 12th.
Analogy:
1 Every fowl who, having been born for the holiday oven, is on 25th November, 2009 a turkey in fattening. [period]
2 or a scrawny chicken scratching around shall become Thanksgiving dinner on 26th November, 2009.
Means for Dallas: Turkeys remains alive beyond Thanksgiving because they’re in fattening [their big day will never come ! ] and we only get to eat scrawny chickens come next Thanksgiving dinner.
Analogy corrected:
Every fowl who is on 25th November, 2009 a turkey in fattening or a scrawny chicken scratching around, having been born for the holiday oven, shall become Thanksgiving dinner on 26th November, 2009
Dallas corrected:
Every person who is on 11th December 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person, having been born in Kenya, shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Dallas is invited to re-parse the analogy to come up with an alternative syntax that we can apply to the original text of Section 87. Best of luck !
1 Unless Dallas can cite contrary examples, it is international principle and practice that nations can only confer their own citizenships: ie no Israeli documents will ever confer Syrian or Iranian citizenship, and no Syrian or Iranian documents will ever confer Israeli citizenship, nor could these documents possibly be enforceable. Certainly and incontrovertibly, long before 1963 the United Kingdom (thus for all British territories) had ratified the 1930 Hague Convention on Nationality, which stated :
It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality. (Article 1)
Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State. (Article 2)
Analogously, I cannot specify who is legally a member of Dallas’ family and he cannot legally announce who is a member of mine. The inescapable truth is that on Independence Day (December 12th, 1963) the Kenyan Republic was bound by the 1930 Hague Convention, and did not have the legal power or authority to create citizens of other nations. (Dallas’ turkey of a theory should die a peaceful death here, but that fattening critter aint going down without a fight before Thanksgiving. Help ! I’m being savaged by a turkey !)
The Kenyan Constitution could never confer UK citizenship on anybody: lawyers under British instruction deliberately drafted it that way, not least because Britain wanted to be rid of the colony and to withdraw from Kenyans the right of automatic entry to the UK. (I am sure Dallas recalls the 1962 UK Commonwealth Immigration Act and his theory can explain why it precedes Kenyan independence.) On 12 December 1963 8.4 million Kenyans’ legal relationship with the UK was terminated, with one exception. 176,000 descendants of migrants from India who had settled in Kenya were now a favored and trusted minority: they had the option of Kenyan or British or Indian or Pakistani citizenship and 90% chose Britain. http://tinyurl.com/d35lkj As offering British citizenship was solely a British policy and a British decision, it was not and could not (per Hague 1930) be reflected in a Kenyan Constitutional document. If Dallas is correct, in that Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution was the “proper” place for Kenyan authorities to “officially allocate” at Independence more than one citizenship to people born in Kenya, why weren’t Indian and Pakistani citizenships conferred in this constitutional instrument ? (Hint:1930.)
2 “The common status of the [1914] British Nationality Act rested on common allegiance. The status of a British born subject depended upon birth within His Majesty’s dominions and allegiance. Now allegiance was the doctrine upon which the British Empire was founded…The principle of common status meant that consultations and agreement between members of the Commonwealth had to precede legislation by any single State…
The [1948] Act abandons common status by repealing from January 1, 1949, the British Nationality Act, 1914,6 except ss. 17 and 18 which relate exclusively to the status of aliens. That Act will then cease to be part of the law of the United Kingdom and the Colonial Empire. But the Act is by separate enactment also part of the law of the older Dominions as regards the nationality of natural born citizens; it has also been adopted by them with relatively minor variations as their law of naturalization. It is also as yet part of the law of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Newfoundland, Southern Rhodesia. Australia and New Zealand…only Canada has so far made provision…[and] all (except Canada) [must] repeal an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament which that Parliament has itself already repealed…as regards India, Pakistan and Ceylon the British Nationality Act, 1914, is still part of the law of those new Dominions by virtue of its original enactment by the Parliament of the United Kingdom until such time as the local legislature enacts another measure. [The UK] Parliament, however, can no longer repeal [the 1914] Act with application to [India and Pakistan] which now enjoy independent legislative status under the India and Ceylon Independence Acts of 1947. [India and Pakistan] could, of course, make use of s. 4 of the [1914] Statute and request that the repeal of the British Nationality Act be extended to them….It is, however, unlikely that…there would be a willingness to surrender the newly-won status of legislative supremacy.”
British Nationality Act, 1948, Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, Third Series, Vol. 30, No. 3/4 (1948), pp. 67-75
Dallas, why didn’t the Constitutions of newly independent India and Pakistan include sections which allocated more than one citizenship in the way claimed for Kenya ? Did you know that India and Pakistan (I’ve checked), as well as Britain (and thus Kenya) were all legally bound by the 1930 Hague Convention on Nationality ? What consultations and agreements on Section 87 could have preceded the Kenyan Constitution in light of the 1930 Hague Convention ? What Kenyan legislation repealed existing British nationality law in force after independence (hint:1964), and with what anterior effect ?
Intelligent answers to these questions will not just be to restate the claim. Until Dallas can produce authoritative sources which fully explain (in terms of his theory) these “inexplicable” omissions and impossibilities, that turkey of a theory can only be regarded as a bizarre and embarrassing misconstruction of the English language….or a merry April prank.
Who Are You Kidding wrote:
“…having been born in Kenya, [AND] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies…shall [THEREBY] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…”
I challenge this statement. Do you have a link qualifying your interpretation. Your added words {AND} and {THEREBY} merely distort
the true intention of the Kenya Constitution, which was to give new citizenship to the BPP starting with a effect date of Dec.12,1963
and for CUKCs to maintain or retain their acquired citizenship begining with a new date of Dec. 11,1963.
(Had Sr. been a CUKC he would not have lost that citizenship on Dec.12 1963 or at all)