Apuzzo setting up the appeal...
Thanks, Seizethecarp.
Posted on 02/04/2012 10:04:54 AM PST by Seizethecarp
The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”
But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States.
The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.”
The court says that Ankeny is persuasive. The court does not show us why Ankeny is persuasive other than to just provide some quotations from the decision. On the contrary, upon close analysis, we can see that Ankeny is far from persuasive on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The court’s decision can only be as sound as the Ankeny decision may be. But an analysis of that decision shows that it was incorrectly decided as to its definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at puzo1.blogspot.com ...
Apuzzo setting up the appeal...
Thanks, Seizethecarp.
An authenticated US or foreign BC under the Federal Rules of Evidence Sec 902 has never been “produced in evidence” in any court. It has never been proved in court that Obama was born inside or outside the US, so neither his citizenship nor his NBC status has been proved in a court.
It was a 14th Amendment case and the decision of the court was that there were only 2 types of citizenship, by birth(natural born) or by naturalization because under both forms, the person only has but one allegiance to the US, one at birth, the other at naturalization upon renouncing allegiance to a former nation.
There are no sub-class of citizens according to the Constitution, one is either naturalized by an act of congress & renunciation of foreign allegiance or they are born owing a single & exclusive allegiance to the US.
And this is why EVERY case will continue to fail. Because by claiming the 14th allows for exclusive “jus soli” citizenship that renders children dual citizens, they shoot themselves in the foot by making the case for Obama. But alas, they will never see it because their egos & legal education have turned an ant hill into mountain by adopting the lies of the adversary aka “jus soli” citizenship regardless of the nationality of the father.
Uh-Oh! My ME/CFS has boggled my brain and I have conflated Elk with Elg! I hate when that happens. I better give posting a rest for the rest of the night...
I will only refer you to Leo Donofrio's work on Elk, which I find to be persuasive.
You are so wrong on this matter that it unlikely that you would ever be able to actually comprehend the truth. You have not understood the precedents, you do not understand legal construction, you have ignored history, and you have accepted a “logic” that leads directly to absurd results.
I invite you to re-educate yourself at a pretty fundamental level so that you can actually come to appreciate the benefits and responsibilities of living in a constitutional republic.
Constitutional law is not complicated, it's the lawyers that make it seem as if it is because they REFUSE to cite current & valid law that is on the books because it does not support their “jus soli” path to citizenship. They all decry how WKA is an erroneous ruling, yet they still refuse to cite the current valid passed at the same time as the 14th to make their case. In doing so, they uphold the case for Obama rather than against him.
A constitutional amendment can not change a former article without specifically saying so. The 14th does not, it merely upholds A1 & A2 by stating there are only 2 paths to citizenship, by A2 born to citizens or by A1 born to an alien father. Any legislation that purports to support “jus soli” only citizenship is A1 citizenship according to the US Constitution, no matter how one tries to skew it.
The slaves owed no allegiance to any foreign power prior to or at the time they were freed, thus they were for all intents and purposes A2 citizens at the time they were freed. And might I remind you, not all blacks were slaves. some were judges, local politicians, doctors, etc. ONLY in slave states were they considered property.
Read the congressional records! Does the Constitution refer to race? YES, Indians, that is it! All others are classified as free without any reference to race! Only immigration laws passed by congress refer to race. The 14th did not make the slaves citizens, it constitutionally protected their rights as born citizens.
(1) In violation of the Constitution or laws of this state; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the Secretary of State; (3) Made upon unlawful procedures; (4) Affected by other error of law; (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; (6) Arbitrary and capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. end quote
If an appeal is even filed. Who knows what that Court will demand the plaintiff bring to Court if it is appealed.
Thanks for that.
Sounds like it would be best if Kemp allows Obama on the ballot and that decision is appealed because it is “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record” AND “in violation of the Constitution or laws of this state”
O.o
(please disregard my previous comment wherein I conflated the Elk case with the Elg case...my new, improved comment follows)
Just because there are two “SOURCES” of citizenship doesn't mean that within one of those two sources, citizen at birth, there could be two SUBCLASSES.
The Minor court defined one subclass of citizens at birth, NBC, NO DOUBT was eligible to be POTUS. Another class of citizens at birth was identified in Minor and affirmed in WKA as being the children of aliens and foreigners, such as baby WKA, about whom there previously was DOUBT (as stated in Minor).
Elk was decided after the passage of the 14A, after Minor v. Happersett, but before WKA. Just as in WKA, the issue in Elk was whether Elk was a 14A citizen born, not whether Elk was a NBC a birth. Distinguishing Elk from WKA is that the 14A issue in ElK was whether Elk was born subject to Indian national sovereignty as opposed to Chinese sovereignty. Plaintiff Elk was not claiming to be an NBC at birth as his parents were not US citizens and were under Indian nation sovereignty (not taxed). Elk ONLY claimed to be a 14A citizen at birth.
Note that the identification of Indians in the Constitution is in the context of sovereignty (Indians not taxed), not race, IIRC.
Incontrovertibly, in addition to naturalized citizens, after MvH and WKA there were two classes of citizens at BIRTH:
1. A2 NBC citizens born in the country of citizen parents
2. 14A children of aliens foreigners meeting the narrow WKA criteria of domicile and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA...the complete jurisdiction according to Elk.
The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393),
(you stopped there yet the sentence continued...see the comma?)
and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306
Then you carry on with the rest.
Why did you leave that off without even placing an ellipsis?
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
This view is confirmed by the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that
Hatfield says he will appeal and I expect the others to appeal, too, although Dr. Taitz may be required to defer to another attorney for the appeal.
If SOS Kemp affirms that Barry is NBC, then that can be contested. But the identity of Barry's father cannot be disputed because that was not contested by Hatfield and Irion. So the only thing that can be appealed is whether Ankeny and WKA's interpretation of Minor makes Barry NBC.
Taitz failed to properly qualify her witnesses or herself, so all of her claimed and proposed finding of fact were rejected by ALJ Malihi. Thus there were no conclusions of law from Taitz's hearing that can be appealed because there were no facts on which to base a legal conclusion, IIUC.
I don't think any new evidence can be provided by any of the parties, plaintiffs or Barry's team, but rather the Superior court will look ONLY at how the law was applied to the findings of fact by the ALJ, to the extent affirmed by SOS Kemp.
Key quote from the Handel case:
“OCGA § 21-2-5(e) directs the superior court to not substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings.”
IIUC, if the superior court doesn't find that the facts support the SOS eligibility determination, the REMAND is the only thing the superior court can order, and there is no new evidence or testimony allowed on the facts. ONLY arguments contesting or supporting the application of the law to the facts is permitted during the appeal of an eligibility determination.
...the REMAND is the only thing the superior court can order...
Would it be remanded to the same Judge or just the same Court?
“Incontrovertibly, in addition to naturalized citizens, after MvH and WKA there were two classes of citizens at BIRTH:
1. A2 NBC citizens born in the country of citizen parents”
Odd, then, that no court has ever noticed what you claim in incontrovertible. Perhaps that is because no court, and 99% of English speakers, read Minor the twisted way you do.
You continue to fall into the Clinton trap of what the definition of the word “IS” is. According to the laws of nations there are only two “SOURCES”, nature(A2) or man(A1). There is not other. Now while man may provide for many sources, nature only provides for one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.