Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

:houra
) In a document dated October 6, 1967, we find this (page 31):
The applicant’s United States citizen wife resides at 2234 University Avenue, Honolulu, Hawaii, with her 6-year-old United States citizen son by a prior marriage. .​
:houra:houraStick it you lying birfer frauds!!:houra:houra
I love it when the truth comes out and the birfer frauds have NOTHING!!Every time they lie and try to spread their shit the truth makes them look like the lying cowardly scumbags they are!
I also love it how the birfer mooches are in FULL PANIC MODE now that they have to try and PROVE their LIES in Georgia!!Get all that money you can Orly and Corsi because after this you FRAUDS will be exposed!!!:lock:
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Gee, what a surprise...the tyrannical Kenyan fuck is panicking, now in full "power grab mode" usurping the Constitution and defying Congress with his illegal "recess appointments" trying to ram through his illegal anti-American agenda!
Golly this has never happened before has it lying fraud birfer??
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-lawsuit-filed-against-hawaii.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(88, 140, 184); outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; "><abbr class="published" title="2012-01-04T17:02:00-08:00" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; ">5:02 PM
</abbr>

New Lawsuit Filed Against Hawaii Department of Health on Behalf of Duncan Sunahara


Lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Health has been filed by Hawaii Attorney
Gerald Kurashima on behalf of Duncan Sunahara, Virginia Sunahara's brother. The case has been assigned to Judge Nishimura. Dean Haskins of the Birther Summitwill be making a public announcement about this case very soon. Stay tuned for further updates.

The case is listed as follows;


Flashback;

Hawaii Department of Health Funny Business Regarding Virginia Sunahara
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Poor ol' tank...he's got himself so emotionally invested in these loser underwear bloggers and "debunking birthers' that he has no idea what's about to hit him in 2012.

Oh well, not like he wasn't given plenty of warning right?

:jerry
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Poor ol' tank...he's got himself so emotionally invested in these loser underwear bloggers and "debunking birthers' that he has no idea what's about to hit him in 2012.

Oh well, not like he wasn't given plenty of warning right?

:jerry
Poor old delusional birfer Joe!He actually thinks the birfers are going to prove something in 2012 using the same old debunked lies .What is even funnier is that he cannot debunk anything the underwear bloggers present but believes WND and Orly who are milking the low IQ crowd out of all the money they can peddling their lies.
So officially after 38 pages and not one single fact I will only ask once again since you always skip it.......why would the state of Hawaii lie about this??
Prove that Obama was adopted !!You cannot answer any of these because WND cannot give you retards an answer or that would blow their whole money making scheme.They continue to keep you tards stupid with all their lies and you continue to not use any logic or facts to stay stupid!I have given you plenty of FACTS but since your Messiah Corsi keeps dumbing you down you cannot think for yourself!!
I cannot wait for the hearing in Georgia and I already know you will be whining and crying and will continue with your same old song and dance...fraud, forgery, lies, blah,blah,blah.Corrupt Judge , duh,duh,duh,
You see the people that use logic are not afraid at all and already know you will lose in Georgia because you have NOTHING but LIES and you birfers are FRAUDS.ZERO FACTS and using OPINIONS can keep the low IQ crowd sending in money but you will LOSE everytime!!I cannot stress enough how much I am looking forward to this and cannot wait to rub it in your face again and make you look like the stupid sheep birfer you are.:cheers
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-lawsuit-filed-against-hawaii.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(88, 140, 184); outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; "><abbr class="published" title="2012-01-04T17:02:00-08:00" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; ">5:02 PM
</abbr>

New Lawsuit Filed Against Hawaii Department of Health on Behalf of Duncan Sunahara



Lawsuit against the Hawaii Department of Health has been filed by Hawaii Attorney
Gerald Kurashima on behalf of Duncan Sunahara, Virginia Sunahara's brother. The case has been assigned to Judge Nishimura. Dean Haskins of the Birther Summitwill be making a public announcement about this case very soon. Stay tuned for further updates.

The case is listed as follows;



Flashback;

Hawaii Department of Health Funny Business Regarding Virginia Sunahara
Haskins is trying to claim that Obama took this girls number after she died!!When the numbers do not match this will be laughed out of court too!!Mark this down as another birfer loss!!What will that make it 0-88??:houra
Joe I want to start making some money off you low IQ tards too.How much do you want to bet on these cases??Put your money where your mouth is and let's do this !!I cannot wait and since you are so confident that the birfers are going to win I will gladly accept any wager and any amount of money you want to give me...or I mean bet me!!Let's do this birfer!!
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/update-on-lawsuit-filed-against-hawaii.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(88, 140, 184); outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; "><abbr class="published" title="2012-01-05T12:06:00-08:00" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; ">12:06 PM</abbr>
Update on New Lawsuit Filed Against Hawaii Department of Health on Behalf of Virginia Sunahara's Brother, Duncan Sunahara

As first reported
here, brother of Virginia Sunahara, Duncan Sunahara, has filed suit against Hawaii to obtain access to Virginia's original long-form birth certificate. Dean Haskins of the Birther Summit lays out the details below. See the complaint here.

WAS BABY VIRGINIA SUNAHARA'S IDENTITY STOLEN?
Dean C. Haskins


As was previously reported, in October and November, we spent a total of 2 ? weeks in Hawaii on an investigative assignment. It was at the beginning of that stay that we met Duncan Sunahara, a highly informed, but unassuming guy, complete with his signature coconut palm frond hat. He was a military veteran with an obvious deep love for his country.

Early last year, Duncan had become aware of some possible issues surrounding his late sister Virginia's birth certificate, and had spent quite a bit of time on his own trying to get his questions answered. As he related to us, it seemed he was getting nothing but a "run around" from the Department of Health, and the area hospitals. Oddly, it had been reported in 2010 that DOH Director, Loretta Fuddy, had claimed that no records existed for Virginia Sunahara.

Duncan knew that his sister was born in the same hospital that he had been a few years earlier, and that she was transferred to another hospital, but he didn't know which one (and his elderly mother could not remember). He had visited the birth hospital, Wahiawa General, and both Queen's and Kapi'olani Medical Centers, but was not able to obtain any information from them. We were able to help him procure all of the medical records from the day Virginia spent in Wahiawa General, and found that she was transferred to Kapi'olani, but Kapi'olani insists they have no records on file. It does seem odd that Wahiawa would have the records, but Kapi'olani supposedly does not (how much room could it take to store a roll of microfilm?). This certainly seems "convenient" for them.

When we visited the Department of Health, we weren't quite sure what we would find, since Loretta Fuddy had insisted that Virginia's records didn't exist. However, we were pleasantly surprised that Duncan's application produced several certified copies of Hawaii's new short form birth certificate (which they now absurdly call their "long form"). Upon closer inspection, we learned that the number assigned to Virginia's birth certificate is 151-1961-011080, and realized that, statistically, that number simply cannot be legitimate.

Now, here's what's wrong with that number: we all know that the last group of numbers on the "certificate" Barack Obama claims is his official record is 10641, and his certificate was supposedly processed on August 8, 1961. We also know that the Nordyke twins were assigned the numbers 10637 and 10638, and their certificates were processed on August 11, 1961. Virginia Sunahara's birth certificate states that it was processed on August 10, 1961, but the number it was assigned is 443 higher than the Nordyke twin whose certificate was stamped with the number 10637.

We know that there were 17,616 births in Hawaii in 1961, which shows a statistical average of 48 births per day. To arrive at the number now assigned to Virginia's birth certificate, nine to ten days would have had to have lapsed after the Nordyke twins' certificates were processed, but Virginia's processing date was the day BEFORE the Nordyke's.

To refute the ridiculous argument that birth certificate worksheets were pre-numbered, and clerks kept small stacks of them on their desks for processing, that is not only patently false, but also, by federal law, would be illegal. Birth certificate "worksheets" (what they call blank birth certificate forms) are kept at the hospitals, and it is there where the information is entered onto them. Once all the information has been entered, they are sent to the DOH, where they are processed using a Bates machine, which enters certificate numbers sequentially, and then the date of processing is stamped onto them. Basement bloggers who suggest otherwise simply prove their lack of factual knowledge with that argument (as if any further proof of that were needed).

We went back to the DOH the next day to try to obtain a photocopy of Virginia's original birth certificate, but were told that Duncan was not allowed to receive that (according to DOH rules). When we pointed out to Supervisor Jesse Koike that their "rules" were illegal, according to Hawaiian statutes, he told us that Duncan would have to discuss that with Dr. Alvin Onaka. We spent four hours waiting to speak with Onaka, who eventually instructed the security guard to throw us out of the facility (which seems to be outrageous behavior from someone with nothing to hide). Duncan also made several phone calls trying to make an appointment to see Onaka, but could not get him even to return his calls.

We then sent a certified letter to Onaka requesting the photocopy, and also included the relevant statutory information, and were informed in writing that we would have to take the matter up with Hawaii's Attorney General, which we did. The response we received from the AG contained the same deceptive misinterpretation of the statute, so, as a final step toward filing a complaint with the court, Duncan sent a letter asking for an estimate of how much it would cost for the DOH to perform the necessary research to copy, and send, Virginia's original birth certificate. No response was ever received from the DOH.

Having attempted every administrative procedure to obtain that to which Duncan is statutorily entitled, a lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, January 3, 2012.

Here is a video interview of Duncan Sunahara.

It is still unbelievable that, in 2008, our so-called media dispatched teams to sift through Sarah Palin's trash looking for anything they could find to discredit her, but did nothing of the sort regarding an empty suit Marxist from Chicago who refused to provide any substantive documentation regarding his eligibility. When the media and the politicians refuse to do their jobs, it is up to "We the People" to do it for them—and that is exactly what we are continuing to do. Please stay tuned, as we will keep you up to date on this case.

###

If you would like more information about the Birther Summit, please visit our website often at www.birthersummit.org or contact Dean Haskins at dean@birthersummit.org.




<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/clmtb6vmeBs?rel=0" width="640"></iframe>

Duncan Sunahara v. Hawaii Dept. of Health, et al., - Complaint Summons - 1/3/2012
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/nbcs-wxia-tv-georgia-judge-denied.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(88, 140, 184); outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; "><abbr class="published" title="2012-01-06T11:39:00-08:00" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; ">11:39 AM
</abbr>


NBC's WXIA-TV: Georgia Judge Denied Obama's Motion to Dismiss GA Ballot Access Challenge Case - VIDEO HERE

WXIA's Print Article: Atlanta court hearing set on President Obama's disputed citizenship - READ HERE

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zqarKwe5Eww?rel=0" width="640"></iframe>

LATEST ORDERS RELATED TO GEORGIA BALLOT CHALLENGE HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.

Please visit www.Article2LegalDefenseFund.com and consider making a secure donation to help cover legal costs associated with the GA ballot challenge.
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")


Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.

Please visit www.Article2LegalDefenseFund.com and consider making a secure donation to help cover legal costs associated with the GA ballot challenge.
:LMAO:LMAOBe sure to send in some money Joe!!And when this one goes down the drain....what can we come up with next right??
How much money are we going to bet on this case anyway??Put your money were your mouth is!Let's do this!!
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

[h=2]Birther poll revisited[/h]by Dr. Conspiracy on <abbr class="date time published" title="2012-01-05T11:51:55-0500" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); cursor: help; ">JANUARY 5, 2012</abbr> in BIRTH CERTIFICATE, BIRTH LOCATION, EDITORIAL, POLLS, WORLDNETDAILY
I first wrote about this WorldNetDaily poll two years ago. WND asked its readers to respond to the following question:
Under what circumstances will the truth about Obama?s birth finally be revealed?
It turns out that only 1% (22 out of 3382) anticipated this eventual outcome: ?He finally steps up to the plate, and releases his long-form, hospital birth certificate.? President Obama did indeed release his long-form, hospital birth certificate in April of last year. Only 1% gave a second correct answer: ?Get over it. He?s already disclosed the truth that he was born in Hawaii.?
As I wrote back in 2010, the most bizarre aspect of the poll is the by far most popular (43%) answer: ?The truth is already out there, that he is hiding information precluding him from being eligible for the presidency.? What they are saying is that they are convinced by evidence that they don?t have. I am reminded of a quote from the Bible: ?Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.?[SUP]1[/SUP] By that definition, the birther movement is a faith based system.
Another popular response (15%) says that the new Congress will take over and issue a conclusion. So far there is no indication that the new Congress elected in 2010 will address the issue.
Another minority response (5%) said ?A civil lawsuit will finally see success.? I think it likely that one or more civil suits will reach a decision on the merits this year. Whether WND readers will call them ?successes? remains to be seen.
:LMAO
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

[TABLE="width: 800"]
<tbody>

[TD="align: left"]

[/TD]

 
</tbody>[/TABLE]
January 6, 2012

Academia Shrugs: Obama's Citizenship and the Presidency


ByCindy Simpson

By avoiding the contentious question of Obama's "natural born" eligibility, America's academic establishment has also stifled discussion on the inextricably related issue of citizenship law in our country, in the greater context of immigration reform.

The first instance of academia's cloak-throwing was noted in an American Thinker
article which described the revision made by Professor Larry Solum to his scholarly paper that addressed Senator McCain's eligibility, "Originalism and the Natural Born Citizenship Clause." The originalversion was published in 2008. Without saying it explicitly in his footnote of explanation, Solum's revision implied, subtly, that he also supported the eligibility of Obama, with his one citizen parent instead of two -- yet Solum did not include citations or references that defended his rationale for the change, nor has he published papers since that discussed this aspect of the issue.

Solum's unsupported rewriting was mentioned again in the more recent article, "The Great American Memory Hole." That column also described the strange and related story of "JustiaGate" -- the "mangling" of text and citations, for approximately a three-year period beginning mid-2008, on Justia's database for 25 Supreme Court decisions that directly cited the particular case of Minor v Happersett. It so happens that Minor contains a succinct definition of "natural born" citizenship (essentially, born in the country to citizen "parents," plural) that attorney Leo Donofrio contends represents binding precedent. In addition to the anomalies noted at Justia, Donofrio discovered a complete block of relevant text missing from Ex Parte Lockwood at Cornell -- a case that Donofrio argues further proves his assertion that Minor's statements on citizenship are binding precedent vs. dicta.

Cornell's Professor William Jacobson countered that Justia is not utilized by "practicing lawyers," but it is revealing to note that both Jacobson's Legal Insurrection blog and the WSJ Law Blog, for example, recently and frequently link to Justia's Supreme decisions, and that Google searches often list Justia as a top hit -- reinforcing the reality that Justia's Supreme Court database does indeed maintain a significant voice in the court of public opinion.

Shortly after Donofrio's findings and further claims regarding the precedent set by Minor, Professor Jonathan Turley published a post by contributor David Drumm entitled "Holdings, Dicta, and Stare Decisis." The last sentence of Drumm's post refers to the Wikipedia article on Minor as further support for his assertion that the "natural born" comments are dicta; however, that particular Wikipedia entry was revised only a couple of months ago (soon after Donofrio's assertions) to include the very paragraph that Drumm cites. Comments on Drumm's post now number over 1,300, bearing witness to an ugly war that continues to rage among anonymous commenters. The revision history for the Wikipedia entry reveals similar battle scars.

"In the Spirit of Truth," Donofrio has, via his "Natural Born Citizen" blog, invited other attorneys to directly challenge his assertions:

The definition of natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett is
binding precedent; Ex Parte Lockwood acknowledged Minor as precedent for the definition of federal citizenship; and the statements in Minor fit the description of precedent established by the Court in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States.
Will any accept the offer, or, along with other legal academics, will attorneys continue the "bizarre birther intellectual dance" described by Jacobson that sidesteps reasonable questions of law and spins around only the infamous birth certificate?

In his original paper, Solum's description of "natural born citizen" closely followed Justice Waite's wording in Minor, yet Solum indicated that the meaning of the term simply derived from "general agreement." (Solum attributed his later revision to "a matter of inclusion.") I have been unable to locate other articles addressing the eligibility of either candidate that examined the Minor definition. That is astonishing, for whether the statements in Minor were dicta or precedent, they were still directly relevant; yet many insisted that the term "natural born" had never been defined by the Court.

In early 2008, at the request of the McCain campaign, Professor Laurence Tribe and former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson presented a memo to Congress stating their opinion that McCain was a natural born citizen, though born in the Canal Zone, "by virtue of his birth ... to US citizen parents." The memo became the basis for Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by both Obama and Clinton, clearing the path for McCain's eligibility.

Professor Gabriel Chin responded to the Tribe/Olson opinion in a lengthy analysis titled "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship." Chin quoted the Minor natural born definition in a footnote but without further elaboration. In his conclusion, Chin noted that the statutes that precluded the eligibility of McCain, whom he described as "not only not a race-baiter but disapprov[ing] of race discrimination," were the result of "antique technicalities of the legal regulation of race."

Although Chin did not mention it, the fact that those who raise the issue of Obama's eligibility are called racist seems even more ironic.

In 2011, describing "birthers" as focused only on Obama's place of birth, Chin asserted that "neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has weighed in on the question" of natural born citizenship -- neglecting to recall his own reference to Minor and specific citation of its definition in his 2008 paper.

Professor Peter Spiro, in his 2008 scholarly article supporting his favorable opinion of McCain's eligibility, concluded with this general remark: "The prospect of a dual-citizen president proves the obsolescence of requiring our chief executives to be natural born citizens." Spiro's statement appears to suggest that dual citizens are not natural born, yet he did not acknowledge the dual citizenship claimed by Obama on his campaign website and further confirmed by the State Department. Factcheck also affirmed Obama's dual citizenship, but dismissed it as irrelevant based on the opinion of an anonymous blogger.

After Obama released his long-form birth certificate in 2011, Spiro published another article, "Birthers' Next Line of Retreat: Obama was a Dual Citizen!" in which he denigrated "birthers" as "conspiracists," called the dual citizenship question a new "bizarre sideshow," and referred readers to the "excellent explanation from factcheck.org."

In the 2008 article on McCain, Spiro asserted: "Constitutional questions do not require constitutional decisions. If non-judicial actors -- including Congress, editorialists, leading members of the bar, and the People themselves -- manage to generate a constitutional consensus, there isn't much that the courts can do about it."

However, Spiro and other academics have failed to similarly address Obama's eligibility, much less with a level of scholarship or seriousness (if Chin's and Spiro's 2011 articles quoted above are any indication) that would appear to justify such a "consensus."

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) circulated three memoranda on presidential qualifications, the first dated April 3, 2009, the second, March 18, 2010. The first report addressed the eligibility of both McCain and Obama; the second focused primarily on Obama's birth certificate and whether citizens had "standing" in the eligibility suits, yet both reports failed to mention Minor.

Following the activity in the blogosphere over whether Minor's definition was binding precedent and the new state ballot challenges, CRS issued a third report, titled "Qualifications for President and the 'Natural Born' Citizenship Eligibility Requirement." Without stating the reasons behind the report's preparation or its requestor, the author, "Legislative Attorney" Jack Maskell, asserts that based on "the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars," not only are both McCain and Obama natural born citizens, so is anyone born on U.S. soil (irrespective of the citizenship or domicile status of either parent), and even some who were foreign-born, as long as they had at least one citizen parent who fulfilled previous residency requirements.

According to Dr. Jerome Corsi, "rather than advance the eligibility debate with a truly scholarly analysis, Maskell produced ... a footnoted polemic aimed at appearing scholarly to prop up Obama's eligibility defense." And unsurprisingly, this third report dismisses the definition in Minor as mere dicta.

The two-step process followed by the court in Minor (to first answer whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen and secondly whether that status gave her the right to vote) was discussed in another article, "Citizenship Jeopardy." The "presumed" citizenship of Hamdi and Obama's recent drone target, al-Awlaki, was analyzed -- "presumed" being the adjective used by Justice Scalia in his dissent in Hamdi v Rumsfeld, a 2005 case that argued that Hamdi, as a U.S. citizen by virtue of the "birthright citizenship" practice (born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizens), was entitled to habeas corpus.

The controversy over "birthright citizenship" centers on the citizenship and domicile status of the parents and is thus unavoidably related to the definition of "natural born" citizenship as it pertains to Obama. The political tension surrounding immigration reform and charges of racism levied against the "birthers," combined with the tragic yet effective distraction of the birth certificate, have further contributed to this contentious issue.

The hot button of immigration reform was addressed in another article that mentioned the 2005 congressional hearing, "Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty," in which all participants seemed to agree (some reluctantly) that the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment (as well as the really very narrow ruling in Wong Kim Ark) did not guarantee or mandate the grant of citizenship to the children, born in the U.S., of aliens.

Although opinions differ over the application of the amendment as it relates to the temporary or permanent, legal or illegal status of the aliens' presence -- if the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase is not redundant (to "born in the country") and in fact alludes to the concept of allegiance -- the legality of the non-citizen parent's border-crossing seems far less pertinent than the intent to domicile. In addition, while many claim that the parents' status is irrelevant to the rights of the child, derivative citizenship laws appear to support the opposite view.

A few years after the hearing (and coincidentally, when Obama came on the scene), discussion of citizenship was labeled "birther" talk, with conservative pundits like Mark Steyn referring to "rinky-dink technicalities" and attorneys such as Mark Levin (who led the call for Clinton's impeachment based on the technicality of lying under oath) loudly refusing to even courteously acknowledge what seem to be very valid, interesting, and timely questions:

Does mere birth in the US, regardless of circumstances, guarantee citizenship?

If foreign-born naturalized citizens are required to renounce past foreign citizenship, should a status of dual citizenship at birth (the result of the birthright citizenship practice as well as the 1922 Cable Act which no longer required that women lost their U.S. citizenship upon marriage to an alien) necessitate a renunciation of the foreign citizenship by the child at majority?

Does the dual citizenship of a large and growing proportion of our population have implications for our national security?

And if naturalized citizens are not qualified for the presidency, should dual citizenship at birth likewise preclude eligibility?
According to Dr. John Eastman, it was not until around 50 years ago that "popular perception" grew into the "idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status." Eastman asserts: "We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough."

Has such "gradual" thinking replaced the Constitution? Will the convoluted reasoning enshrined in Wong Kim Ark and the "unabashedly result-oriented approach" in Plyler v Doe continue to shape the character of our nation's citizenship and sovereignty?

In this nation of immigrants, assimilation was once a cornerstone of our desire to build a cohesive national character. Today, assimilation has been replaced by multiculturalism, "press 2 for Spanish," and voting materials printed in foreign languages. The children of "birth tourists" are granted U.S. citizenship. And the oath sworn by naturalized citizens requiring rejection of past foreign citizenship is no longer enforced.

Concern over whether popular elections should trump valid questions of constitutional law (with related lawsuits dismissed for lack of "standing" or "particularized injury") combined with the apparent absence of a formal mechanism to ensure the legitimacy of candidates creates a slippery slope further heightened by the symbolic nature of the question:

Does the current commander-in-chief, sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, actually have the right to hold that office? Do the "folks" he serves have a right to ask that question and have it respectfully answered?

Professor Chin wrote: "The rule of law would be mortally wounded if courts, Congress or the executive could legitimately ignore provisions of law they deemed obsolete ... It would be a grim moment in history if the very oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution' that made a person President was also a falsehood that defied the document." Chin was referring to a McCain presidency, but should not the same sentiment apply to any president, including Obama?

Constitutional experts who were once vocal opponents of birthright citizenship have failed to opine on the very related eligibility issue. Does their silence imply that they now believe that a birth certificate is the only requirement for citizenship? In an article discussing Marco Rubio's eligibility, Solum was quoted as saying that the birthers' "arguments aren't crazy," but declined to elaborate.

Will academia break that silence by addressing the question of Obama's eligibility with at least the same attention and level of scholarship given to McCain's? And will academia assist our nation in reforming immigration policies that comprehensively address and resolve the issues created by the
birthright citizenship practice and growing proportion of dual citizens?

According to a new study posted on Professor Turley's blog, teaching law ranks second among professions "that pay the most for the least amount of work." Perhaps law professors can find time in their busy schedules to educate the rest of us on these issues, in a scholarly, and not political, fashion.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/academia_shrugs_obamas_citizenship_and_the_presidency.html
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

The fact the Kenyan is down to the fringe Foggybot and Dr. Conspiri-Kook underwear bloggers as his only line of defense is all you need to know where this is headed.

"CRIME OF THE CENTURY" = STONE COLD :lock:
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/fox-news-bret-baier-hearing-now-set-in.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(88, 140, 184); outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; "><abbr class="published" title="2012-01-06T16:22:00-08:00" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; ">4:22 PM
</abbr>


Video: Fox News' Bret Baier: Hearing Now Set in Georgia Ballot Access Challenge Against Obama - VIDEO HERE

Bret failed to mention there are 3 separate hearings set for that day on Obama's ballot access.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2KhFneWERAU?rel=0" width="640"></iframe>

LATEST ORDERS RELATED TO GEORGIA BALLOT CHALLENGE HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.

Please visit www.Article2LegalDefenseFund.com and consider making a secure donation to help cover legal costs associated with the GA ballot challenge.

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

MAKE A PAC CONTRIBUTION HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/donate.html
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

The fact the Kenyan is down to the fringe Foggybot and Dr. Conspiri-Kook underwear bloggers as his only line of defense is all you need to know where this is headed.

"CRIME OF THE CENTURY" = STONE COLD :lock:
So how much are we betting on these cases then??Put your money were your mouth is birfer!!
If you are so confident then a $1000 per case should be fine then right??Let's do this!This should be easy money for you so do not hold back and if you want to go higher just name your price!:pop:
Funny but you have yet to debunk anything the underwear bloggers have presented.As soon as you admit that they are out of your league and you are just a bush league birfer sheep the easier this will get.After all everyone can see you have nothing anyway but please add some more comedy for us and try to debunk what they say.
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/fox-news-bret-baier-hearing-now-set-in.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(88, 140, 184); outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; "><abbr class="published" title="2012-01-06T16:22:00-08:00" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; ">4:22 PM
</abbr>



Video: Fox News' Bret Baier: Hearing Now Set in Georgia Ballot Access Challenge Against Obama - VIDEO HERE

Bret failed to mention there are 3 separate hearings set for that day on Obama's ballot access.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2KhFneWERAU?rel=0" width="640"></iframe>

LATEST ORDERS RELATED TO GEORGIA BALLOT CHALLENGE HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/georgiaballot.html

Note: An Article II Legal Defense Fund has been established to support legal actions to help reinstate a Constitutional Presidency, per Article II, Section 1. These actions may include civil or criminal complaints, lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, including, but not limited to: direct eligibility challenges, ballot challenges, indirect suits against third parties, which would seek to clarify eligibility, or inhibit parties from supporting actions that benefit ineligible candidates and/or officials.

Please visit www.Article2LegalDefenseFund.com and consider making a secure donation to help cover legal costs associated with the GA ballot challenge.

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

MAKE A PAC CONTRIBUTION HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/donate.html

I can hardly wait!!:houraI cannot wait to see what PROOF and Facts they use!:LMAO
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Georgia case could determine whether Obama’s name may be placed on 2012 state ballot…ANY 2012 state ballot!

BY COACH COLLINS, ON JANUARY 7TH, 2012

by Doug Book, staff writer

Americans have finally made the acquaintance of a judge who is willing to adhere to the demands of the Constitution and the laws he swore an oath to uphold upon taking office.

Georgia State Office of Administrative Hearings Judge Michael M. Malihi ruled this week that, as stated in Georgia law, “every candidate for federal office shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (1)

In his ruling, Mahili stated quite simply that “the court finds that the defendant (Barack Obama) is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (1)

The suits which resulted in Malihi’s ruling were brought in response to Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 Georgia State primary ballot. And one of these complaints in particular might cause problems for the acting President of the United States.

In October of last year, attorney Van R. Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation filed lawsuits against the Democrat Party both in Tennessee and at the federal level, “…requesting injunctions prohibiting the Party from certifying that Obama is Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President in the 2012 election.” (2)

It was this same complaint that comprises the Georgia case for which a hearing is scheduled on January 26[SUP]th[/SUP].

Irion’s action has nothing whatever to do with the validity of the birth certificate Obama’s minions posted online last year. And the attorney doesn’t care whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not.

“The only fact relevant to this case,” says Irion, “is the fact that the defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen.” It is Irion’s contention that as Obama’s father was not born in the US and was never a citizen, Obama himself cannot meet the Constitutional standard requiring that a president be “natural born.” (1)

Irion cites an 1875 Supreme Court ruling in which the court stated:

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. (3)
If Irion is successful in obtaining an injunction preventing the Democrat Party from certifying Obama on the Georgia ballot, it will also act to prevent his Party certification and therefore appearance on ANY state ballot nationwide. (2)

Obama has spent a million bucks in legal fees to keep his personal history from the American public. Maybe this will be the one that gets him.

Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml


To read more use these links:

(1) http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/court-obama-must-be-constitutionally-eligible/
(2) http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1209/no-certification-without-verification/
(3) http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/

Further reading: http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/farrar-v-obama.pdf
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Attorney Donofrio: Nothing Left Open As To The Minor Court?s Definition Of Natural-Born Citizen

OBAMARELEASE YOURRECORDS ON <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/attorney-donofrio-nothing-left-open-as.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(88, 140, 184); outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; outline-color: initial; "><abbr class="published" title="2012-01-08T02:02:00-08:00" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; ">2:02 AM
</abbr>

The McCreery v. Somerville Funeral ? Maskell And Gray To Attend ?
Minor v. Happersett To Preside
Attorney Leo Donofrio




Part 1: JUSTICE GRAY MISQUOTED McCREERY V. SOMERVILLE AND THE RELEVANT STATUTE.

Grab a cup of java, put your thinking caps on, kick back and relax. We are going to be here for a while. Focus. Below, you will be privy to a true and proper revision of United States Supreme Court history.

One of the foundational building blocks for Justice Gray?s opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is the case, McCreery v. Somerville, 22 US 354 (1824), to which Gray made a fatally flawed assumption based upon his failure to acknowledge a judicially recognized misquote. Then, Justice Gray compounded his initial error by creating a separately deceptive quotation.

These errors completely sully his analysis of McCreery. Gray failed to inform his opinion in Wong Kim Ark with the fact that the U.S Supreme Court had questioned that opinion in 1881, just prior to Gray having joined the Court.

In Sullivan v.Burnett, 105 U.S. 334 (1881), the Court stated:
?This view is controverted by the plaintiffs on the authority of McCreery?s Lessee v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, where this Court had occasion to determine the meaning of the statute of 11 & 12 William III. c. 6,?We remark in reference to that case that the English statute is not accurately quoted in the opinion of the Court, as an examination of 10 British Stat. at Large 319 (Pickering?s Ed.) will show. but without deciding that the words omitted ought to have produced a judgment different from that rendered, we are of opinion that the present case is not governed by McCreery?s Lessee v. Somerville.? Sullivan v. Burnett, 105 U.S. 334, 340-341. (Emphasis added.)
The misquote would not have changed the outcome in McCreery since the issue of the plaintiff?s citizenship status made no difference to the case, where the plaintiff could not inherit from a living ancestor. In Sullivan v. Burnett, the Missouri statute did allow for inheritance through a living ancestor, so McCreery was not controlling. However, the misquote completely nullifies Justice Gray?s assumption in Wong Kim Ark. And considering that McCreery is the only Supreme Court holding prior to Wong Kim Ark which appeared to assume that native-born persons of alien parents were citizens, the embarrassment of the failed assumption further weakens the questionable reputation of Justice Gray?s controversial opinion.

I came upon the Sullivan case by way of a footnote found at the Princeton Firestone Library, which has the dusty old Wheaton Supreme Court Reporters. Wheaton added a footnote to McCreery v. Somerville regarding the misquote.

I have learned from experience that every point of authority mentioned by Justice Gray in his 55 page opinion must be examined under a microscope, and that the resulting picture is more often than not quite different than he alleges. These anomalies include straight forward mistakes, unfounded assumptions, misquotes and subtle acts of misdirection. Nothing can be taken at face value. Considering that Gray was indirectly determining the citizenship status of President Chester Arthur (who appointed him), the appearance of impartiality has been severely compromised. In the days ahead, I will present all of the problems now associated with Gray?s opinion in great detail. Today, we begin with McCreery v. Somerville.

Justice Gray assumed that the Supreme Court in McCreery made it?s own assumption that the plaintiff in McReery was a ?native-born citizen? of the United States:

?In McCreery v. Somerville (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the state of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that state of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were ?native-born citizens of the United States?; and without such assumption the case would not have presented the question decided by the court, which, as stated by Mr. Justice Story in delivering the opinion, was ?whether the statute applies to the case of a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship, where none would exist by the common law, if the ancestor were a natural-born subject.? Id. 356.? U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 661.
Before we get to the misquote by Justice Story in McCreery (which was reiterated by Gray), we have in the quote above a very misleading quotation that appears intentional. Justice Gray cites to pg. 356 of McCreery at the end of the passage wherein he placed quotes around ?native-born citizens of the United States?. But no such quote appears on pg. 356. In fact, the Court?s opinionin McCreery nowhere states that the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen, native-born or otherwise. The headnote and facts agreed upon by the parties call the plaintiff a citizen, but these are not part of the Court?s opinion, and are not law.

Since the plaintiff?s ancestor was alive, the Court held that the plaintiff could not inherit from him. And this would have been the holding regardless of the plaintiff?s citizenship status.

Having determined that the plaintiff couldn?t inherit from that particular ancestor, the Court never reached the direct issue of her citizenship. And a thorough review of the facts and the British statute construed in McCreery reveals that the Court would not have been required to determine she was a native-born citizen of the U.S. in order for her to inherit.

Gray?s assumption is culled from this passage in McCreery:

CONTINUED HERE: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...-gray-to-attend-minor-v-happersett-to-preside

ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html


 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

[h=2]The Georgia Birther ballot challenge[/h]by Dr. Conspiracy on <abbr class="date time published" title="2012-01-08T13:52:29-0500" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); cursor: help; ">JANUARY 8, 2012</abbr> in 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, BIRTHERS, EDITORIAL, LAWSUITS
As I start this editorial, I’m not quite sure what I’m going to say. The story of the Georgia ballot challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility is a fascinating, rich and multi-layered story with twists and turns and surprising connections. However, so much of that story was received in confidence that I don’t think I can write it, at least not now. What I will do is hold up the mirror and talk about how I feel.
I’ve spent a lot of editorial energy on this site criticizing birthers and particularly their methods. I decry smears. I decry lies. I decry legal incompetence and frivolous lawsuits. But for once the Birthers have done the right thing.
The people of the State of Georgia in their wisdom have enacted legislation that allows Georgia voters to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on ballots in Georgia. The administrative lawsuit, Farrar v Obama, to be heard this month in Atlanta is an exercise by Georgia citizens of their legal rights to challenge what the Georgia Secretary of State did in approving Barack Obama for the 2012 primary ballot. Judge Malihi agreed when she rejected a motion to dismiss by Obama’s attorney Michael Jablonski.
Don’t misunderstand. I think Birther claims are the worst kind of nonsense. There are no legitimate grounds under which Barack Obama can be excluded from the presidential ballot, but that is beside the point. Birthers believe otherwise, and in Georgia they have the legal right to have those claims examined in court. So I applaud the birthers for following the law and seeking to have their grievances examined in an appropriate venue. Based on limited input, I think many thoughtful anti-birthers share this view. We have come together to agree on the rules of the contest.
That’s for now. There are a number of factors that will certainly upset the idyllic scene. The first factor is Orly Taitz, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Keep in mind that the success the Birthers have had in Georgia is not due to Orly Taitz. She didn’t guide them through the process, and she didn’t write the motion that prevailed and prevented dismissal. We can expect Orly to engage in the same deplorable legal demeanor that we’ve seen before. The second factor is that there will be a winner and there will be a loser, and this has to happen advance of the March 6 Georgia Primary. The birthers, specifically, will lose. Once that happens, they will crucify Judge Malihi and deny the validity of the process that they themselves selected. It’s their nature.
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

[h=1]Another 1961 certificate number[/h]by Dr. Conspiracy on <abbr class="date time published" title="2012-01-07T15:32:07-0500" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); cursor: help; ">JANUARY 7, 2012</abbr> in BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Intellectual curiosity leads one to speculate about patterns in observed data. I’ve done this in the case of birth certificate numbers in Hawaii. From what we know, birth certificates were numbered centrally at the State Health Bureau office in Honolulu using a stamping machine. The question is whether or not there is any rhyme or reason in the order in which the certificates were stamped.
In a previous article, Obama’s birth certificate number, I explored what I knew and proposed a plausible scenario to explain it, suggesting that records might have been alphabetized in multi-week (perhaps monthly) batches before stamping, something that makes sense from the standpoint of filing efficiency.
Then a new data point arrived, courtesy of a poorly-redacted birth certificate image published at WorldNetDaily. That certificate blew away birther theories of a strict birth-order sequence in the serial numbers. I wrote about that certificate in New Hawaiian certificate explodes birther theories.
Up until now, we had these data points to work with:
  • WND Mystery certificate – 09945 – 8/23/1961
  • Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – 8/5/1961
  • Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638- 8/5/1961
  • Obama, Barack – 10641- 8/4/1961
  • Waidelich, Stig – 10920- 8/5/1961
Now, courtesy of Dean Haskins, there’s a new data point.

This certificate is represented as for a child named Sunahara who was born the same day as Barack Obama and died one day later. The first observation, in response to the question: “did Obama steal baby Virginia Sunahara’s Birth Certificate?” is that we can categorically say “no” because the certificate number doesn’t match.
So how does this new number fit in?
  • WND Mystery certificate – 09945 – 8/23/1961
  • Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – 8/5/1961
  • Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638- 8/5/1961
  • Obama, Barack – 10641- 8/4/1961
  • Waidelich, Stig – 10920- 8/5/1961
  • Sunahara, Virginia – 11080 – 8/4/1961
Besides reasonably fitting what one would expect for an August, 1961, birth, it’s not very helpful. It’s inconsistent with a strict batch alphabetization scheme. Since Sunahara was deceased by the time the certificate was filed, it might have been handled differently. The range of numbers we see now spans 1136 births. An average month in Hawaii in 1961 had 1468 births. There’s a lot of data we just don’t have.


Thanks for showing what a dumbass Dean Haskins is!!:LMAO
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

[h=1]New Hawaiian certificate explodes birther theories[/h]by Dr. Conspiracy on <abbr class="date time published" title="2011-09-14T16:50:33-0500" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); cursor: help; ">SEPTEMBER 14, 2011</abbr> in BIRTH CERTIFICATE, JEROME CORSI, WORLDNETDAILY
In a recent article at WorldNetDaily, Jerome Corsi talks about a comparison of typefaces made by Paul Irey between the Obama certificate and a newly-disclosed sample certificate from later in August. Irey, hopelessly blinded by confirmation bias, compares apples to oranges in terms of document resolution and arrives at the conclusion he expected; however, the information inadvertently disclosed on this new certificate completely destroys a mainstay of the birther objections to Obama’s certificate, namely that his certificate number is impossible.
Several articles here have discussed Obama’s birth certificate number. The birther objection is that Obama’s number is higher than that of the Nordyke twins born a day later. Birthers demand (for no good reason beyond the fact that Obama’s certificate doesn’t have this characteristic) that the certificate numbers must exactly follow the order of the births themselves. I showed in my article, Obama’s birth certificate number, that the information from available certificates suggests that certificates were batched and alphabetized before numbering, and even estimated the size of that batch.
Now WorldNetDaily has published a certificate it says is authentic dating, from August 23, 1961, that has a lower number (61-09945) than both Nordyke and Obama! (Of course, they tried to cover up the number and then they did cover it up, but Google’s cache doesn’t forget.) Thanks to Computer Guy John Woodman, author of Is Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud? for publishing this discovery by “Woofer.” I urge readers to read Woodman’s article because it not only presents the discovery with the care and attention to detail we have come to expect from Woodman, but because it describes some shenanigans at WorldNetDaily that may have been aimed at covering this all up.
Here are the old results, plus the new information:
  • WND Mystery certificate – 09945 – 8/23/1961
  • Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – 8/5/1961
  • Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638- 8/5/1961
  • Obama, Barack – 10641- 8/4/1961
  • Waidelich, Stig – 10920- 8/5/1961
My own calculations suggested that Obama’s certificate was part of a batch of 3 weeks certificates. Obama, born August 4, and the unnamed WND certificate holder born August 23 would be within a three week period and conceivably processed in the same batch. If we knew the surname on the WND certificate, we could get confirmation for or disprove my theory that the batch was alphabetized before numbering. If I’m right, the surname would be something preceding “Nordyke” in the alphabet by a good bit. (I’m not in a position to do a detailed calculation this week of what the letter should be according to my theory.) Woofer, who examined the image showing through to the back side of the WND certificate, believes that the surname might begin with “A.”
While the objection to the registrar signature on the Obama certificate (“ukulele’) has already been debunked, this certificate has the same signature.
Since WorldNetDaily has scrubbed the original images, I reproduce them here (taken from Google cache) for reference (click for original-sized versions).


 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

I cannot wait to hear the birfers excuses when they get laughed out of court again!!0-89!:LMAO:LMAOThese tards actually think they have something!:LMAO
Joe are we laying $1000 on this case?Should be easy money for you right?:lol
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

by Dr. Conspiracy
As I start this editorial, I’m not quite sure what I’m going to say.

What I will do is hold up the mirror and talk about how I feel.

I’ve spent a lot of editorial energy on this site


Yep, that about sums up this Dr. Conspiri-Kook -- loads of hyperbole vomiting his "feelings" and "editorial energy" on his loser low traffic website...ZERO FACTS!

At the end of the day, REALITY will leave Hussein the illegal Kenyan and his underwear bloggers, well, naked. (GROSS!)

 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")



Yep, that about sums up this Dr. Conspiri-Kook -- loads of hyperbole vomiting his "feelings" and "editorial energy" on his loser low traffic website...ZERO FACTS!

At the end of the day, REALITY will leave Hussein the illegal Kenyan and his underwear bloggers, well, naked. (GROSS!)

Of course since Coach Collins:LMAOWND and ORYR are so educated AND PRESENT SO MANY FACTS :LMAO we should just believe them at face value correct?:LMAOI am still waiting for you to debunk anything they say but since I know you cannot since you use NO FACTS and have ZERO PROOF I will continue to let yourself look stupid.Keep sending in money!Speaking of money are we on for $1000 on this case in Georgia?Put your money where your mouth is or keep showing your insecurities why you avoid this.You seem to think ORYR, WND and Coach Collins :LMAOare right then you should be taking easy money right?What are you afraid of??Just because birfers are 0-88 in cases should mean nothing to a smart..:LMAO birfer like you.
Doc would love for you to show where he is wrong and debunk all of this.Facts ARE NOT YOUR FRIEND.
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Hey dipshit, there's nothing to "debunk".

What part of "editorial" don't you understand? Editorials aren't FACTS, they are OPINIONS. Debating opinions is a waste of time.

You and the underwear bloggers isolated in Kookville are entitled to your own delusional Obot opinions, but not your own facts.

Bring some FACTS (reputable sources, photos, documents etc.) to the table, or be prepared to be ridiculed for the fringe fear-and-smear Obot nutjobs that you are!

:3dgros13:
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

BUSTED AGAIN!!!
WND is nothing but a plagiarizer lying fraud that only stupid people believe.
More PROOF of these corrupt stupid FRAUDS!
[h=3]WND's Farah Lifts From the L.A. Times and the AP?[/h]


In reaction to my blog post from last week, documenting the uncredited lifting of text in a Jerome Corsi article, WND appended an 'Editor's Note' to Corsi's article, claiming that the "error" was the result of unscrupulous (and still anonymous) "Kenyan researchers". No further explanation has followed.

I then wondered if these same "Kenyan researchers" were responsible for the Aaron Klein article from two weeks earlier, where he appears to have cribbed from a CNN editorial.

Now we can further ask whether these same "Kenyan researchers" must also be to blame for Farah's own November 22 column, "Civil rights and civil wrongs", which was published less than a month before Corsi's article. Because Farah's writing bears an uncanny resemblance to articles by the Los Angeles Times and theAssociated Press. And Farah's column contains no links or citations whatsoever, much less to the L.A. Times or to the AP specifically.

Here are some comparisons of the text, with quotes from Farah's column italicized, and word-for-word identical text bolded:

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:
Students and teachers at the trial testified that King had been dressing in women's accessories and wearing makeup, and was flirting aggressively with male students on campus who did not want the attention.​
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
For whatever reasons, the 14-year-old was acting up by dressing in girls' clothing, wearing makeup and flirting aggressively with other young boys in his junior high school in Oxnard.​
Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:
The victim's mother, Dawn King, revealed for the first time Monday that she had contacted school officials four days before the shooting in an effort to solicit their cooperation in toning down her son's behavior. The boy had been taken from the Kings' home two months earlier by authorities because of domestic problems.​
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
Dawn King said she contacted school officials to solicit their cooperation in getting her son to tone down his behavior. Two months earlier, Larry King was taken from his parents because of domestic problems.​
(Note: So far, you'll notice, there is at least the effort to rearrange the sentences, rather than simply cutting-and-pasting them. It seems that midway through "writing" this column, that proved to be too much work...)

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:
She said she was told that her son had a civil right to explore his sexual identity.

"I knew, gut instinct, that something serious was going to happen," she said. "They should have contained him, contained his behavior."
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
Mrs. King was told by school officials that her son had a civil right to explore his sexual identity.

"I knew, gut instinct, that something serious was going to happen," she said. "They should have contained him, contained his behavior."
Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:
School administrators sent a memo advising teachers to give King his space, but to report safety problems.
Teachers at the trial testified that when they tried to report growing tensions between King and several boys, school leaders shunned them.
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
Prior to the shooting, school administrators sent a memo advising teachers to leave King alone, but to report safety problems.
Teachers at the trial testified that when they tried to report growing tensions between King and several boys, school leaders shunned them.
Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:
Assistant Principal Joy Epstein has come under criticism for allegedly being more intent on protecting King's civil rights than in acknowledging that his dress and behavior were causing problems.

"It was reported, more than once, by more than one person,'' said English teacher Dawn Boldrin. "It was documented. There is paperwork on this. She kept saying that she didn't know and she did. She knew. She did. Everybody knew."
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
Assistant Principal Joy Epstein has come under criticism for allegedly being more intent on protecting King's "civil rights" than in acknowledging that his dress and behavior were causing problems.

"It was reported, more than once, by more than one person,'' said English teacher Dawn Boldrin. "It was documented. There is paperwork on this. She kept saying that she didn't know and she did. She knew. She did. Everybody knew."
Associated Press, November 22, 2011:
Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, said in a statement the plea agreement ends a tragic chapter.

"Ventura County along with communities and school districts everywhere must come together to promote a culture of respect and nurture the true potential found in every individual regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression," Byard said.
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
In the aftermath of this wholly preventable tragedy, Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, said in a statement the plea agreement ends a tragic chapter:

"Ventura County along with communities and school districts everywhere must come together to promote a culture of respect and nurture the true potential found in every individual regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."


So once again, why exactly should anyone believe in the existence of these "Kenyan researchers"? And why are there three different articles, by three different senior WND writers, all within the span of a single month, that have committed the same journalistic offense?

How can anyone be stupid enough to believe these lying FRAUDS is amazing.
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

BUSTED AGAIN!!!
WND is nothing but a plagiarizer lying fraud that only stupid people believe.
More PROOF of these corrupt stupid FRAUDS!
Says an Obot underwear blogger. *yawn*

Which has exactly what to do with the Kenyan's ineligibility -- the "crime of the century"? :+clueless

 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Hey dipshit, there's nothing to "debunk".

What part of "editorial" don't you understand? Editorials aren't FACTS, they are OPINIONS. Debating opinions is a waste of time.

You and the underwear bloggers isolated in Kookville are entitled to your own delusional Obot opinions, but not your own facts.

Bring some FACTS (reputable sources, photos, documents etc.) to the table, or be prepared to be ridiculed for the fringe fear-and-smear Obot nutjobs that you are!

:3dgros13:
By saying their is nothing to debunk is just admitting that you have ZERO PROOF and you cannot debunk any of the FACTS they have presented.For every stupid accusation you present they explain it using logic and Facts.You are screaming about the numbering of birth certificates and they have shown why that is.You have lied about him being adopted and they have PROVED he was not.Every stupid accusation you have presented they have presented FACTS proving you wrong so all you have is the same old''you cannot believe them ''crap that only a low IQ tard would believe.We are dealing with FACTS here and all you have is OPINIONS .
Quit avoiding the BET!!Are we on for $ 1000??PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!!
Let's do this!!I having ZERO fears about losing but since you keep evading it tells me you are afraid of losing?Come on you birfers have presented so many facts you should have nothing to fear and this is easy money for you so take the bet or keep showing you are a chicken shit and do not believe your birfer brothers.
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Says an Obot underwear blogger. *yawn*

Which has exactly what to do with the Kenyan's ineligibility -- the "crime of the century"? :+clueless
:LMAO:LMAOTypical!!The PROOF is all there and all you have is this???:LMAO:LMAO
I am sure it is all legit and just a coincidence right?:LMAOBUSTED FRAUD!!YOU ARE PATHETIC!!
So humor us and show how this is all wrong and they are not busted again!!
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

BUSTED AGAIN!!!
WND is nothing but a plagiarizer lying fraud that only stupid people believe.
More PROOF of these corrupt stupid FRAUDS!
WND's Farah Lifts From the L.A. Times and the AP?



In reaction to my blog post from last week, documenting the uncredited lifting of text in a Jerome Corsi article, WND appended an 'Editor's Note' to Corsi's article, claiming that the "error" was the result of unscrupulous (and still anonymous) "Kenyan researchers". No further explanation has followed.

I then wondered if these same "Kenyan researchers" were responsible for the Aaron Klein article from two weeks earlier, where he appears to have cribbed from a CNN editorial.

Now we can further ask whether these same "Kenyan researchers" must also be to blame for Farah's own November 22 column, "Civil rights and civil wrongs", which was published less than a month before Corsi's article. Because Farah's writing bears an uncanny resemblance to articles by the Los Angeles Times and theAssociated Press. And Farah's column contains no links or citations whatsoever, much less to the L.A. Times or to the AP specifically.

Here are some comparisons of the text, with quotes from Farah's column italicized, and word-for-word identical text bolded:

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:
Students and teachers at the trial testified that King had been dressing in women's accessories and wearing makeup, and was flirting aggressively with male students on campus who did not want the attention.​
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
For whatever reasons, the 14-year-old was acting up by dressing in girls' clothing, wearing makeup and flirting aggressively with other young boys in his junior high school in Oxnard.​

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:
The victim's mother, Dawn King, revealed for the first time Monday that she had contacted school officials four days before the shooting in an effort to solicit their cooperation in toning down her son's behavior. The boy had been taken from the Kings' home two months earlier by authorities because of domestic problems.​
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
Dawn King said she contacted school officials to solicit their cooperation in getting her son to tone down his behavior. Two months earlier, Larry King was taken from his parents because of domestic problems.​

(Note: So far, you'll notice, there is at least the effort to rearrange the sentences, rather than simply cutting-and-pasting them. It seems that midway through "writing" this column, that proved to be too much work...)

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:
She said she was told that her son had a civil right to explore his sexual identity.

"I knew, gut instinct, that something serious was going to happen," she said. "They should have contained him, contained his behavior."
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
Mrs. King was told by school officials that her son had a civil right to explore his sexual identity.

"I knew, gut instinct, that something serious was going to happen," she said. "They should have contained him, contained his behavior."

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:
School administrators sent a memo advising teachers to give King his space, but to report safety problems.
Teachers at the trial testified that when they tried to report growing tensions between King and several boys, school leaders shunned them.
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
Prior to the shooting, school administrators sent a memo advising teachers to leave King alone, but to report safety problems.
Teachers at the trial testified that when they tried to report growing tensions between King and several boys, school leaders shunned them.

Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2011:
Assistant Principal Joy Epstein has come under criticism for allegedly being more intent on protecting King's civil rights than in acknowledging that his dress and behavior were causing problems.

"It was reported, more than once, by more than one person,'' said English teacher Dawn Boldrin. "It was documented. There is paperwork on this. She kept saying that she didn't know and she did. She knew. She did. Everybody knew."
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
Assistant Principal Joy Epstein has come under criticism for allegedly being more intent on protecting King's "civil rights" than in acknowledging that his dress and behavior were causing problems.

"It was reported, more than once, by more than one person,'' said English teacher Dawn Boldrin. "It was documented. There is paperwork on this. She kept saying that she didn't know and she did. She knew. She did. Everybody knew."

Associated Press, November 22, 2011:
Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, said in a statement the plea agreement ends a tragic chapter.

"Ventura County along with communities and school districts everywhere must come together to promote a culture of respect and nurture the true potential found in every individual regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression," Byard said.
Joseph Farah, November 25, 2011:
In the aftermath of this wholly preventable tragedy, Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, said in a statement the plea agreement ends a tragic chapter:

"Ventura County along with communities and school districts everywhere must come together to promote a culture of respect and nurture the true potential found in every individual regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression."



So once again, why exactly should anyone believe in the existence of these "Kenyan researchers"? And why are there three different articles, by three different senior WND writers, all within the span of a single month, that have committed the same journalistic offense?


How can anyone be stupid enough to believe these lying FRAUDS is amazing.
According to Joe this is not PROOF!!!:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
Like a good little birfer just keep lying and evade all the facts.Your OPINIONS are getting you somewhere in birfer land.:houra
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Says an Obot underwear blogger. *yawn*

Which has exactly what to do with the Kenyan's ineligibility -- the "crime of the century"? :+clueless
This shows that WND is nothing but lying FRAUDS that plagiarize and take money from the low IQ crowd that is to stupid to realize it.Stupid people actually believe these FRAUDS and it is sad!!You should know huh!:btj:
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Like I told you in 2011, I'm done with your low IQ, manic, fear-and-smear garbage -- none of which has anything to do with the only FACT that matters: THE KENYAN'S INELIGIBILITY!
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

The McCreery v. Somerville Funeral – Maskell And Gray To Attend – Minor v. Happersett To Preside.

Part 1: JUSTICE GRAY MISQUOTED McCREERY V. SOMERVILLE AND THE RELEVANT STATUTE.

Grab a cup of java, put your thinking caps on, kick back and relax. We are going to be here for a while. Focus. Below, you will be privy to a true and proper revision of United States Supreme Court history.

One of the foundational building blocks for Justice Gray’s opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is the case, McCreery v. Somerville, 22 US 354 (1824), to which Gray made a fatally flawed assumption based upon his failure to acknowledge a judicially recognized misquote. Then, Justice Gray compounded his initial error by creating a separately deceptive quotation.

These errors completely sully his analysis of McCreery. Gray failed to inform his opinion in Wong Kim Ark with the fact that the U.S Supreme Court had questioned that opinion in 1881, just prior to Gray having joined the Court.

In Sullivan v.Burnett, 105 U.S. 334 (1881), the Court stated:

“This view is controverted by the plaintiffs on the authority of McCreery’s Lessee v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, where this Court had occasion to determine the meaning of the statute of 11 & 12 William III. c. 6,…We remark in reference to that case that the English statute is not accurately quoted in the opinion of the Court, as an examination of 10 British Stat. at Large 319 (Pickering’s Ed.) will show. but without deciding that the words omitted ought to have produced a judgment different from that rendered, we are of opinion that the present case is not governed by McCreery’s Lessee v. Somerville.” Sullivan v. Burnett, 105 U.S. 334, 340-341. (Emphasis added.)
The misquote would not have changed the outcome in McCreery since the issue of the plaintiff’s citizenship status made no difference to the case, where the plaintiff could not inherit from a living ancestor. In Sullivan v. Burnett, the Missouri statute did allow for inheritance through a living ancestor, so McCreery was not controlling. However, the misquote completely nullifies Justice Gray’s assumption in Wong Kim Ark. And considering that McCreery is the only Supreme Courtholding prior to Wong Kim Ark which appeared to assume that native-born persons of alien parents were citizens, the embarrassment of the failed assumption further weakens the questionable reputation of Justice Gray’s controversial opinion.

I came upon the Sullivan case by way of a footnote found at the Princeton Firestone Library, which has the dusty old Wheaton Supreme Court Reporters. Wheaton added a footnote to McCreery v. Somerville regarding the misquote.

I have learned from experience that every point of authority mentioned by Justice Gray in his 55 page opinion must be examined under a microscope, and that the resulting picture is more often than not quite different than he alleges. These anomalies include straight forward mistakes, unfounded assumptions, misquotes and subtle acts of misdirection. Nothing can be taken at face value. Considering that Gray was indirectly determining the citizenship status of President Chester Arthur (who appointed him), the appearance of impartiality has been severely compromised. In the days ahead, I will present all of the problems now associated with Gray’s opinion in great detail. Today, we begin with McCreery v. Somerville.

Justice Gray assumed that the Supreme Court in McCreery made it’s own assumption that the plaintiff in McReery was a “native-born citizen” of the United States:

“In McCreery v. Somerville (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the state of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that state of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were ‘native-born citizens of the United States’; and without such assumption the case would not have presented the question decided by the court, which, as stated by Mr. Justice Story in delivering the opinion, was ‘whether the statute applies to the case of a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship, where none would exist by the common law, if the ancestor were a natural-born subject.’ Id. 356.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 661.
Before we get to the misquote by Justice Story in McCreery (which was reiterated by Gray), we have in the quote above a very misleading quotation that appears intentional. Justice Gray cites to pg. 356 of McCreery at the end of the passage wherein he placed quotes around ‘native-born citizens of the United States’. But no such quote appears on pg. 356. In fact, the Court’s opinion in McCreery nowhere states that the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen, native-born or otherwise. The headnote and facts agreed upon by the parties call the plaintiff a citizen, but these are not part of the Court’s opinion, and are not law.

Since the plaintiff’s ancestor was alive, the Court held that the plaintiff could not inherit from him. And this would have been the holding regardless of the plaintiff’s citizenship status.

Having determined that the plaintiff couldn’t inherit from that particular ancestor, the Court never reached the direct issue of her citizenship. And a thorough review of the facts and the British statute construed in McCreery reveals that the Court would not have been required to determine she was a native-born citizen of the U.S. in order for her to inherit.

Gray’s assumption is culled from this passage in McCreery:

“It is perfectly clear that at common law her title is invalid, for no person can claim lands by descent through an alien, since he has no inheritable blood. But the statute of 11 and 12 Wm. III, ch. 6, is admitted to be in force in Maryland, and that statute, beyond all controversy, removes the disability of claiming title by descent, through an alien ancestor. The only point, therefore, is whether the statute applies to the case of a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship where none would exist by the common law, if the ancestor were a natural born subject.” McCreery v. Somverville, 22 U.S. 354, 355-356. (Emphasis added.)
The Court’s use of “the only point” is the basis for Gray’s assumption. The title to the statute in question is:

“An act to enable his Majesty’s natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens.”

With regard to the title, Justice Story also stated, “The title is not unimportant, and manifests an intention merely to remove the disability of alienage.” Justice Gray’s analysis assumed the title to the act meant that it pertained only to “natural-born subjects”. And if that were true, then Gray’s assumption would be fair. This is because “the only point” stated in McCreery was whether the plaintiff could inherit despite the ancestor being alive. If the plaintiff’s citizenship were in question, then there would have been more than one point to decide.

Therefore, if the statute applied only to natural-born subjects, the Court’s opinion in McCreery could be said to have recognized the plaintiff as a native-born citizen of the U.S., despite her being born here to an alien father. But, in true actuality, the statute specifically refers to natural-born subjects as well as “subjects within any of the King’s realms or dominions”. In the United Kingdom, “subjects within any of the King’s realms or dominions” pertains to resident aliens. These are persons permanently domiciled within the UK who are neither natural-born nor naturalized.

A “natural-born subject” is a subject wherever he goes in the world, but a resident alien is only a subject of the United Kingdom when he is actually in the King’s realms. Therefore, Gray’s assumption is busted since the plaintiff in McCreery was within the statute regardless of whether she was considered by the Court to be a U.S. citizen or a resident alien. Since the Court’s opinion doesn’t mention the citizenship status of the plaintiff, it cannot be assumed that the Court assumed she was a U.S. citizen rather than a resident alien. As such, Justice Story’s reference to “the only point”, while being correct, does not establish that the Court assumed the plaintiff to be a native-born citizen. Regardless, if the Court in McCreery made the assumption attributed to it by Justice Gray, that assumption was unfounded under the statute.

Justice Gray also stated that “without such assumption the case would not have presented the question decided by the court”. Not true. The statute, as written, includes resident alien subjects as well as natural-born subjects. Since Justice Story’s opinion in McCreery exhibits judicial restraint by wisely avoiding the citizenship issue, Gray’s assumption is unfounded generally. But considering Story’s judicially recognized misquote, the assumption is specifically, factually, and objectively unfounded as well. Justice Gray was obligated to point this misquote out, but instead, he danced around it.

Here is an image of the actual statute (link to book containing statute, pgs. 228-229, pgs. 473-474 of PDF file):



Here is the passage from McCreery wherein Justice Story misquotes the statute:

“…that all and every person or persons, being the King’s natural born subject or subjects, within any of the king’s realms or dominions, should and might, thereafter, inherit and be inheritable, as heir or heirs, to any honours, etc., lands, etc., and make their pedigrees and titles, by descent, from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although the father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor, of such person or persons, by, from, through, or under whom he, she, or they should or might make or derive their title or pedigree, were, or was, or should be, born out of the King’s allegiance, and out of his majesty’s realms and dominions, as freely, fully, and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if such father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor or ancestors, by, from, through, or under whom he, she, or they should or might make or derive their title or pedigree, had been naturalized, or natural born subjects.’ “
A word for word comparison illustrates numerous errors, but we are concerned with only two. First, please compare the initial line of Justice Story’s quote, and the erroneous reiteration by Justice Gray, to the actual statute:

Justice Story: all and every person or persons, being the King’s natural born subject or subjects, within any of the king’s realms or dominions

Justice Gray: all and every person or persons, being the king’s natural-born subject or subjects, within any of the king’s realms or dominions

The Statute: all and every person or persons, being the King’s natural-born subject or subjects within any of the King’s realms or dominions (emphasis added)

Both Story and Gray insert a comma after “subjects” which grammatically changes the statute. The comma is not in the actual statute. With the comma inserted, it might be argued that the statute applies to a natural-born subject or subjects – singular or plural. If that were true, then the statute would only apply to natural-born subjects and not to resident alien subjects.

But even with the comma inserted, the statute still refers to “subjects, within any of the King’s realms or dominions”, and if it were meant to apply only to natural-born subjects, their whereabouts would not be relevant since natural-born subjects maintain their status anywhere in the world. Expatriation wasn’t even recognized in the U.K. until 1870. The statute makes no sense on this point unless the location of the person/subject matters, and it could only matter to a person/subject who was considered to be the King’s subject only when within the King’s dominions. And the only class of British subjects to which location is relevant are resident aliens. So this interpretation not only makes grammatical sense, it makes legal sense.

Furthermore, the statute is much broader than the title. The title mentions only the parents having been aliens, but the statute cures any defect of inheritable blood from all ancestors, not just the mother and father. The title is a broad statement, whereas the statute is very specific. Also, note that the statute uses similar terminology again in the second half, “natural-born subject or subjects within the King’s dominions“, where no comma is inserted either. Justice Story stopped his quote before reaching this phrase, and were he quoting from the actual Statute 11 & 12 William III, he should have included – ”. . .” - to signify that the quote was cut there, and that it goes on.

The cause of Justice Story’s misquote was not discussed in Sullivan v. Burnett, nor, as far as I can tell, has the source of the error been previously revealed. As it turns out, I have discovered the root cause of the misquote, but I don’t think I was the first to discover it, only the first to reveal it. More on that below. But first, please note that Justice Gray’s quotation of the Statute 11 & 12 William III closes with, “natural-born subject or subjects within the king’s dominions.’ Therefore Gray’s quotation of the statute continued where Justice Story’s did not, in that Gray cites the second useage, including “subjects within the King’s dominions”, and he does so without the comma, which is correct.

This second useage of the phrase refers to the ancestor, whereas the initial useage pertains to the person trying to inherit. The plaintiff in McCreery was trying to inherit so the statute refers to her in the first part, and to her ancestor in the second. Therefore, the comma inserted by Story and Gray in the first part, creates a grammatical difference, which it now appears, Justice Gray was aware of and actually manipulated to aid his assumption. This reeks of foul play. And here’s why.

Gray’s awareness that the second part contained no comma indicates that he was using a source other than Justice Story’s opinion which makes no reference to the second useage of “subjects within the King’s dominions”. As stated above, Story’s quote stops just short of getting there. This is because… wait for it — Justice Story was actually quoting from the wrong statute. In McCreery, after his quote and analysis of 11 & 12 William III, he analyzes Statute 25 George Ch. II, enacted in 1753 as an explanatory statute pertaining to 11 & 12 William III, to which Justice Story notes:

The statute of Geo. II., therefore, after reciting the act of William, declares…
McCreery v. Somerville, 22 U.S. 354, 359.
Well, this happens to be wrong. As you shall see below, the Statute 25 George II does not recite the Statute 11 & 12 William III,word for word, rather, it revises slightly what was already there, as well as adding new provisions to it. That it was revised, rather than recited, becomes obvious when you consider the title of 25 George II:

An Act to Obviate Doubts that may arise upon an Act made and passed in the 11th and 12th Years of the Reign of His Late Majesty King William the Third…
This Act then appears to quote 11 & 12 William III directly, and in doing so it provides the exact quote used by Justice Story, who, understandably, relied upon the 25 George II revision of the Statute 11 & 12 William III, rather than the true original version. Justice Story must not have checked the original statute. And I empathize with him, since the 25 George II appears, from its introductory language, to indicate that what follow in quotation marks is a recital of the original 11 & 12 William III. Unfortunately for Justice Story, that is not the case.

The quotation marks not only include the revised William III language, but the quotation marks include much more new language that was not included in the original William III. You may view the statute 25 George II at the same link provided above for William III (at pgs. 229-230, PDF 474-475) where they are published back to back. Here’s a snapshot of the George II:


As you can see, it most certainly is a revision. Note the part in quotation marks which begins, “And whereas many doubts and inconveniences may arise…” None of that was in the original William III, so there should be no quotation marks around it. The same can be said for the more subtle revisions in the actual text of the original William III. For example, the original states, “shall and may hereafter lawfully inherit“, while the revised 25 George II edition states, “should and might thereafter lawfully inherit“. Both Story and Gray misquoted the 25 George II edition as if it was the William III as to this phrase; Story gives, “should and might, thereafter”; Gray gives “might and should thereafter”.

Now, here’s where it gets truly interesting: Justice Gray’s selective quotations, incorrectly cite the first part of the William III, exactly as Justice Story did, but then later Gray cites the true William III, as Story did not. This is evidence that Justice Gray was aware of Justice Story’s error, as well as the source of Justice Story’s error. Yet, Justice Gray fails to mention either the error or the source, while purposely availing himself of the error in the Wong Kim Ark opinion. Not cool.

Furthermore, the revised William III, as stated in 25 George II, strips the closing comment, “subjects within the King’s dominions”, from the end of the Act. Therefore, Story was quoting entirely from the 25 George II, and his quotation, as I stated above, does not contain “. . .”, to indicate that the Act continues, because in the revised version of the William III, it does not continue. What does comes after, despite being in quotation marks, is obviously not part of the William III. That the new language is in quotation marks should have been a red flag for Justice Story.

The second reference to “subjects within the King’s dominions” was deleted because it’s redundant and confusing. The William III statute was designed to treat each ancestor as if they were a natural-born subject. As such, the language from the second part of the original William III, which Justice Story did not quote, but which Justice Gray did, was superfluous. If the ancestor is placed on the same footing as a natural-born subject, there’s no need to include “subjects within the King’s dominions” as well. It adds nothing and was therefore properly deleted as to the ancestor. This is why the revised William III, as stated in 25 George II, ends with “natural-born subjects” (plural), whereas in the original William III, it was “natural-born subject” (singular), continued by the deleted text.

That this second reference to “subjects within the King’s dominions” was deleted from the William III in the 25 George II revision, while the initial reference to “subjects, within any of the King’s realms or dominions” was left in (albeit, with the addition of the comma), indicates that such language has a separate purpose, whereas the second reference was superfluous, and therefore deleted.

Furthermore, since the second reference changes “natural-born subject” to “natural-born subjects”, the first reference cannot be explained away, despite the comma, as having the purpose of making plural “natural-born subject”, because had that been intended, it would have been carried out in the same manner as the second reference, which was accomplished by pluralizing the original reference to “natural-born subject”, by simply changing it to “natural-born subjects”. Therefore, the first reference in the revised William III must pertain to exactly what the original pertained to, “subjects within the King’s realms or dominions”, aka, resident alien subjects.

Additionally, Justice Gray adds further insult to injury, by stating:

“As that statute included persons born ‘within any of the king’s realms or dominions,’ if of course extended to the colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 661.
This masks a subtle ruse. Gray begins with – “As that statute included persons born ‘within any of the king’s realms or dominions,’ ” - but the statute actually states, “subjects within any of the King’s realms or dominions“. It does not state, subjects born within any of the King’s realms or dominions. Huge difference.

Justice Gray has been caught usurping the statute to suit his own needs, which are not the needs of truth, justice and the American way. I call a foul on Justice Gray.

Justice Story made an honest error based upon a confusing statutory revision which used quotation marks poorly. No foul play there. But Justice Gray has been caught here with his hand in the cookie jar. He misquoted the first part of the William III just as Story did, but quoted the second part perfectly, which Story did not. This is clear evidence that Gray knew the source of Story’s error, but chose to keep the rest of the nation in the dark about it.

Justice Gray could not have properly quoted the original William III without having knowledge of it.

The Gray/Arthur nexus creates a dark moment for the U.S. Supreme Court. Never has a single Justice had so much at personal stake in a decision of the Court. Considering that Gray wrote the majority opinion, the Supreme Court truly needs to react. This issue is not going away and will only serve to create a spiraling mistrust of the institution of the Supreme Court if left to fester.

And I have more to come on virtually every source cited by Gray. If this were the only anomaly, he might deserve a pass, but there’s more of this behavior to be exposed in the days ahead. Diatribe over. Let’s get back to the law.

When a resident alien subject leaves the UK to change his domicile, he is no longer considered to be a British subject. The issue was discussed by Sir John Salmond in his report, “Citizenship and Allegiance“, 18 Law Quarterly Review, pp. 49, 50 (1902):




Then, on pg. 59, Salmond notes, after a discussion concerning the common law rule against aliens being able to inherit, that, while non-resident aliens may not avail themselves of statutes, resident aliens, on the other hand, may claim protection of law under statutes:



Therefore, “subjects within any of the King’s realms or dominions”, aka, resident alien subjects, might inherit under the very statute construed in McCreery.As such, Justice Gray’s assumption – that the Court in McCreery proceeded upon its own assumption that the plaintiff there was a native-born citizen of the U.S. – is unsound.

And McCreery v. Somerville provides no support at all for the holding in Wong Kim Ark, which is tainted by Gray’s various misquotes, some of which have been confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Burnett.There is no excuse for Justice Gray failing to mention the warning by the Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Burnett.

It was an 1881 decision. Gray joined the Court in December, 1881.Justice Story’s error made no difference to the outcome of McCreery v. Somerville, but Justice Gray’s errors makes all the difference to his reliance upon McCreery in Wong Kim Ark.

Part 2: JACK MASKELL’S CRS MEMO CONTAINS BLATANTLY FRAUDULENT ANALYSIS OF McCREERY v. SOMERVILLE
.

Jack Maskell’s latest Congressional “research” memo on POTUS eligibility failed to unearth the McCreery misquote as repeated in Wong Kim Ark. Unfortunately, the memo takes inspiration from Justice Gray’s cavalier quotation operation by going one step further in concocting authorities out of thin air which do not exist anywhere other than the mind of its author, who has committed the cardinal sin of legal memo writing by advocating rather thaneducating.

The first thing one learns at law school in Legal Research and Writing 101 are the rules pertaining to the composition of a memorandum of law. This is a document usually requested by a partner from an associate. A common situation occurs when the partner is heading to court for an argument, and with limited time available he assigns the task of research to a subordinate. The associate is required to write an objective memo advising the partner of the best possible arguments for both sides.If the associate then offers to the partner a one-sided memo which slants the law in favor of their client, and the partner is thereafter surprised in court by opposing counsel with authorities and arguendo which were not included in the memo, said partner will be offering said associate free limo service to the unemployment line.

Maskell’s “memo” is a complete failure as a legal memo. It presents only that which advocates for eligibility whilst steadfastly avoiding that which does not. And the evidence presented is intentionally misleading.In a previous report, I highlighted Maskell’s incredibly deceptive practice of Frankensteining quotes out of thin air then attributing them to the US Supreme Court even though the Court said no such thing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never issued either of the following statements, permutations thereof:The petitioner, born of alien parents in the United States, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.The petitioner, born in the US of one alien parent and one citizen parent, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.Since the US Supreme Court has never issued an opinion stating the above, Jack Maskell has attempted to speak for the Court as to this issue. For example, on pg. 13 of the CRS memo, at Footnote 61, Maskell states:

“61 169 U.S. at 661-662, discussing McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354 (1824), where, the court noted, that such rule of natural born citizenship by birth within the country ‘of course extended to the Colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there.’


Based upon this footnote, it would appear that both Justice Gray’s discussion of McCreery v. Somerville in Wong Kim Ark, as well as the Supreme Court’s actual opinion in McCreery v. Somerville, contain direct references to the phrase “natural born citizenship”.

But appearances are certainly deceptive. Neither phrase, “natural born citizenship”, nor “natural born citizen”, appear anywhere in the opinion from McCreery v. Somerville.And ”native-born citizen” was the exact term used by Justice Gray, not natural-born. This is even more troubling now that we know the opinion of the Court in McCreery never even states that the plaintiff was a native-born citizen, never mind natural-born. Footnote 61 is a bold fabrication of a Supreme Court holding offered to the public as if it were real.

The entire 53 page CRS memo is stuffed with such fabrications.Part 3: MINOR v. HAPPERSETT PROVIDES THE EULOGY.

If a blockbuster quote such as is alleged in Maskell’s Footnote 61 really did exist from the US Supreme Court, there would be no need for a 53 page “memo” on the topic. Such a quote would slam dunk the controversy. But no U.S. Supreme Court opinion has ever held that a person born in the country of alien parentage is eligible to be President. That has never happened.In fact, the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:
“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.”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident.

There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in the country of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as “natives or natural-born citizens”, but these were also further identified as being “distinguished from aliens or foreigners”.

The distinction is crucial.On one side are those who have no citizenship other than that of the United States… as distinguished from those on the polar opposite side who have absolutely no claim to citizenship in the United States; “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Those who fall in between these two extremes make up a third class of persons whose citizenship status, the Court noted, was subject to doubt:“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Id. (Emphasis added.)

Had this third class been contemplated as having any claim to being natural-born citizens, the distinction employed by the court would not make sense. The distinction was employed to more specifically identify the class of persons who were natural-born citizens under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. The two classes discussed are in direct polar opposition to each other. Had this distinction not been employed, it might be argued that those born in the country of one citizen parent were also natural-born.

But the distinction leads to the necessary conclusion that the Court in Minor was identifying a two-citizen parent rule.For example, a person born in the US to a British father and U.S. citizen mother would, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (and at the time Minor v. Happersett was decided), be considered as a natural-born subject of the U.K. Whether this child would be, at his birth, a citizen under the 14th amendment, was left undecided by the Court in Minor. But let’s assume that the child was a U.S. citizen. Where does that child fit into the distinction offered by the Court in Minor?

The child is not on either polar extreme, since the child was not exclusively a US citizen at birth, nor was the child exclusively a British subject at birth. He does not fit into the distinction.By choosing two extremes – those who, at their birth, are nothing but U.S. citizens – “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” – those who, at their birth, are in no way U.S. citizens – the Supreme Court in Minor provided the necessary criteria to properly discern their holding.Nothing has been left open as to the Minor Court’s definition of a natural-born citizen.

This is further made clear by the Court’sother - somewhat overlooked – federal citizenship holding:

“The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association…For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words ‘subject,’ ‘inhabitant,’ and ‘citizen’ have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States.When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 165-166 (1874). (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, when the Court uses the words, “citizen” or “citizenship”, no other meaning may be imputed other than, “membership of a nation”. But Jack Maskell believes he can overrule this specific holding of the Supreme Court by inserting the words “natural-born” where they do not appear. ”Natural-born” only pertains to a requirement for the municipal office of President. Those who are natural-born meet that qualification, but all who are citizens, natural-born, naturalized abroad, naturalized here, at birth or later in life, are members of our nation. The word citizen – according to the Supreme Court in Minor – refers to “membership of a nation, and nothing more“. It’s the “nothing more” that Maskell fails to recognize.

In Maskell’s CRS memo, he alleges that the following statement from Minor left open the issue of whether persons born of aliens could be considered as natural-born citizens:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenshipof 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Id. at 167-168. (Emphasis added.)
Reading this passage in light of the definition of “citizen” from pg. 166 of Minor’s unanimous opinion, it becomes evident that what is referred to here is membership in our nation, and nothing more. Any attempt to insert the words – “natural-born” – into this passage to imply that the court left open the issue of whether those whose citizenship was in doubt might also be eligible to be President would be in direct opposition to the Court’s very holding of the case. This expression of doubt must be limited to the political status of the person, not to their eligibility to hold a municipal office. Political status is a legal term of art which means, “membership in a nation, and nothing more”. Presidential eligibility refers to municipal status.

The holding not only determined Virginia Minor’s citizenship, it directly defined “citizen”, and that definition remains the law of the land today.First, on pgs. 165-166, the Court defined the meaning of the word “citizen”. Then, on pgs. 167-168, the court defined the class of “natural-born citizens”. The Court left open the issue of who were “citizens” under the 14th Amendment, which the Court wisely avoided by exercising judicial constraint.

Instead, the Court construed Article 2 Section 1, Clause 5, the natural-born citizen clause. In doing so, they defined and closed that class to persons born in the country to parents who are citizens.The Minor Court’s unanimous opinion and definition of natural-born citizen have never been overruled or even questioned. In fact, the very passage defining the natural-born citizen class was re-stated in Justice Gray’s opinion from Wong Kim Ark. Had he intended to take issue with that definition, or to expand it, then his opinion would certainly contain something like this:Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen eligible to be President.But no such statement exists. It’s also important to remember at all times that the Court in Minor specifically avoided construction of the 14th Amendment, thereby defining the class of natural-born citizens and indentifying Virginia Minor as a member of that class. Virginia Minor directly petitioned the Court to determine that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

But the Minor Court declined to construe the 14th Amendment, and thereafter set about defining the class of persons who were natural-born citizens of the United States in determining that she was a citizen.In 1996, the US Supreme Court’s majority opinion by Justice Breyer in Ogilvie Et Al., Minors v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996), stated that when the Court discusses a certain reason as an independent ground in support of their decision, then that reason is not simply dictum:“Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an ‘independent’ ground in support of our decision, id., at 334.

We cannot accept petitioners’ claim that it was simply a dictum.”The Minor Court’s construction of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution was the independent ground by which the Court avoided construing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.Therefore, such construction is precedent, not dicta, despite POTUS eligibility not being an issue. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition is current legal precedent.Had the Court in Wong Kim Ark identified him as a natural-born citizen, there would have been no need to construe the 14th Amendment, just as it wasn’t necessary to construe it to determine Virginia Minor’s citizenship. But Wong Kim Ark was not natural-born, and therefore the Court was required to construe the 14th Amendment to determine his citizenship status.Again, had Justice Gray’s opinion intended to state that Ark was natural-born, there would be a sentence in Gray’s opinion stating,Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen. But there isn’t. No amount of tongue twisting can insert those words where they do not exist and do not belong.The same is true for the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor v. Happersett.

Had the court intended to say – Some authorities go further and include as natural-born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents – then that is exactly what the US Supreme Court would have said. But they didn’t.And the same can be said for the framers of the 14th Amendment. Had they intended to include the words “natural-born citizen” in the Amendment, then that is exactly what they would have done. But they didn’t. Any attempt to read those words into the 14th Amendment would render Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, to be superfluous. And that goes directly against our entire body of national jurisprudence on the issue of statutory construction.I will more thoroughly address the issue of statutory construction in the days ahead. (Since the state of Georgia will behearing this issue on Jan. 26, 2012, I have decided to come forward with everything I have now, rather than waiting to publish my book.)

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...r-v-happersett-to-preside/?blogsub=confirming
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

Like I told you in 2011, I'm done with your low IQ, manic, fear-and-smear garbage -- none of which has anything to do with the only FACT that matters: THE KENYAN'S INELIGIBILITY!
Just say ''I cannot refute any of the FACTS and all I have is the LIES that WND tells' me'' and I would have some sort of respect for you.But since you continue to LIE,EVADE and duck the FACTS and the BET everyone can see what a cowardly birfer you are so I will continue to expose you and all the lying birfers everytime.
After 39 pages with NO FACTS or PROOF and yet you still say he is ineligible!!:LMAOPROVE IT.
Your OPINIONS and SMEARS are not FACTS!!0-88 IN COURT CASES IS fact!!LlIVE WITH IT LOSER.You made your bed with lying , con artist, plagiarizer frauds and will not back your stupid shit with a simple bet is all anyone needs to know.FRAUD!!
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

The McCreery v. Somerville Funeral – Maskell And Gray To Attend – Minor v. Happersett To Preside.

Part 1: JUSTICE GRAY MISQUOTED McCREERY V. SOMERVILLE AND THE RELEVANT STATUTE.

Grab a cup of java, put your thinking caps on, kick back and relax. We are going to be here for a while. Focus. Below, you will be privy to a true and proper revision of United States Supreme Court history.

One of the foundational building blocks for Justice Gray’s opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is the case, McCreery v. Somerville, 22 US 354 (1824), to which Gray made a fatally flawed assumption based upon his failure to acknowledge a judicially recognized misquote. Then, Justice Gray compounded his initial error by creating a separately deceptive quotation.

So according to this FRAUD the Supreme Court is wrong and he is right??:LMAOOf course birfers that has to be it.Over 30 LEGAL scholars have agreed with this ruling but let's take the word of these FRAUDS!You cannot make this shit up and once again PROVES how these low IQ idiots operate.Hey let me send you some money!!:shoot:
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

BARACK OBAMA UNABLE TO REGISTER FOR STATE PRIMARY AS ALABAMA REVIEWS HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY

01-07-2012 12:26 pm - Americans United for Freedom

UPDATE: An Alabama Court has announced that it will hear arguments as to whether Barack Hussein Obama II is in fact eligible to appear on the State Presidential Primary Ballot. :houra

Several Alabama citizens have filed a lawsuit within the Alabama Circuit Court to "prevent certification of President Barack Obama for 2012 Alabama ballot access pending final hearing based on factual evidentiary hearings."

The deadline for any candidate to register to appear on the Alabama Presidential Primary ballot is just days away, but by agreeing to hear the case, the Alabama Courts have effectively stalled any efforts by the Democratic Party to place Obama on the ballot.

Just as important is the fact that the Court did indeed accept the case. By agreeing to hear the case, the Court appears to have recognized that the defendants, ordinary Alabama citizens, do in fact have standing. In many previous eligibility cases, courts have ruled that ordinary citizens did not have standing, in other words were not sufficiently harmed by the actions of the defendant and therefore had no legal right to bring their case before the courts.

The actions of this Alabama Court is a game changer in that the legal system has finally recognized that ordinary citizens CAN be harmed and DO have the right to protest unconstitutional actions committed at the highest levels of Federal government.

This case could revolutionize the legal system AND return the judiciary to the duty our Founding Fathers intended – protecting the citizenry from Federal power mongering.

As we have said for so long, the power to defeat the Usurper in Chief lies with the STATES. We MUST continue to push all the other states to DEMAND PROOF POSITIVE evidence of eligibility from any Presidential candidate who desires to appear on State ballots.

UPDATE: GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE
DEMANDS PROOF POSITIVE!


Georgia becomes the first state to pursue Obama ineligibility complaints and the end result may keep Barack Obama OFF the Georgia 2012 ballot!

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp's office is pursuing FIVE separate ineligibility complaints filed by Georgia residents. Each complaint argues that Barack Hussein Obama II is ineligible to appear on the 2012 Georgia Presidential ballot. Secretary Kemp has assigned 5 different hearings under five different judges, so that the complaints can move forward.

FAILURE TO APPEAR ON THE GEORGIA BALLOT WOULD COST OBAMA DEVASTATING MEDIA, AND 15 ELECTORAL VOTES!

As our Founding Fathers intended, it is the States which protect us from all out tyranny. The federal election in 2012 and the constitutional eligibility of the candidates is no different. In the end, OUR STATES are responsible for ensuring the eligibility of candidates and OUR STATES will protect us from the tyranny of a Presidential usurper.

With primary season about to hit full swing, time is running short. We MUST compel more states to follow Georgia's lead and DEMAND PROOF POSITIVE ELIGIBILITY for ANY candidate placed on election ballots.

America cannot survive further trampling of our right to constitutionally eligible leadership. WE MUST ACT NOW!

The White House's badly forged "birth certificate" has not ended the debate on Barack Obama's eligibility. Rather, it has opened the door for further allegations of fraud and ineligibility. Georgia resident Kevin R. Powell wrote in his complaint, "Barack Hussein Obama II has publicly admitted his father Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan native and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. Barack Obama Sr. never became a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II is not now and never can be a natural born citizen of the United States…."

Citizen Powell is correct that the legal question of natural born citizenship is unresolved in American jurisprudence, and in the nefarious case of Barack Hussein Obama sits as a gaping wound to the Constitution's integrity, and to our ordered liberty. America is left in an abject posture of unprecedented vulnerability to our national security, sovereignty and prosperity UNLESS AND UNTIL THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IS RESOLVED!

We MUST continue the outcry to determine the truth, and restore the Constitution.
KEEP INELIGIBLE OBAMA OFF 2012 ELECTION BALLOTS! :lock:

Keep Faith

www.libertynewsonline.com . . .
 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

God Bless Alabama and Georgia!

Keep the ineligible fraud off the election ballot in EVERY state and force him to resign in disgrace! If he refuses, arrest and charge the usurper with treason!

"CRIME OF THE CENTURY" = STONE COLD :lock:
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

God Bless Alabama and Georgia!

Keep the ineligible fraud off the election ballot in EVERY state and force him to resign in disgrace! If he refuses, arrest and charge the usurper with treason!

"CRIME OF THE CENTURY" = STONE COLD :lock:
:LMAO:LMAO:LMAO
And when the state of Hawaii admits that the birth certificate is LEGAL and TENDER what will the birfers do then?Game over frauds and I cannot wait.I am so confident I am willing to put my money where my mouth is but I cannot seem to be able to find any birfers willing to do this?Wonder why??:+clueless
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

BARACK OBAMA UNABLE TO REGISTER FOR STATE PRIMARY AS ALABAMA REVIEWS HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY

01-07-2012 12:26 pm - Americans United for Freedom

UPDATE: An Alabama Court has announced that it will hear arguments as to whether Barack Hussein Obama II is in fact eligible to appear on the State Presidential Primary Ballot. :houra
. .
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Paragraph 8.
According, this Court finds that Defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.
/s/
MICHAEL M. MALIHI, Judge


This is how stupid the birfers are!!!!I cannot wait to hear their new excuses.

 
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

I just took the $1000 our resident dufus offered to wager and donated it to an ineligibility legal fund in his name. I urge everyone reading this to stick it to the Obot underwear bloggers and do the same! :thumbsup

:3dgros13: :3dmdr:
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
Re: Jerome Corsi's New Book Proves Obama's Ineligible! ("This is going to make Watergate look like a political sideshow by comparison.")

I just took the $1000 our resident dufus offered to wager and donated it to an ineligibility legal fund in his name. I urge everyone reading this to stick it to the Obot underwear bloggers and do the same! :thumbsup

:3dgros13: :3dmdr:
PROVE IT LYING FRAUD!:cheers I do not believe a word any birfer says since they have all been PROVEN to be LYING FRAUDS.They have no PROOF or FACTS and have been busted plagiarizer and expect people to believe them???This is rich!!
I have PAYPAL and it will be easy to set this up so let's do it for $1000 coward.Put your money were your mouth is unless of course you are to afraid to do it?Or if $1000 is too much then I will gladly go $ 500 or whatever you want to give me ..or I mean bet me.
 
Top