Posted on 12/01/2011 10:01:50 AM PST by rxsid
"Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.
Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his ever changing Congressional Research Memo on POTUS eligibility and the natural-born citizen clause. The CRS memo is actually a blessing for me in that I’ve been putting a comprehensive report together on this issue for about a month now. But not having an official source standing behind the entire body of propaganda made my job more difficult.
The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty. On pg. 48, Maskell states:
In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.
Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt. Could I have missed this case? Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen? The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in. I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.
The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens. His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark. His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned. Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.
It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents. But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.
Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen. But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents. The Supreme Court rejected that contention. And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue. I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.
When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork. He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:
“[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”
These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion. Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts. The first is not in quotation marks:
of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is
And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:
“a natural born American citizen ….”
Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:
…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
But the Supreme Court never said that. Here’s what they actually said:
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.” Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).
This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.
Maskell avoids the inconvenient truth that the Court took direct notice of the authorities having established that the petitioner’s father was born in the US and that he was a voter:
“…the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.” Id. at 460.
Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.
This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility.
Had Maskell simply offered his arguments fairly, using real quotes instead of Frankensteining this crap, I would not have attacked him personally. But such deceptive behavior deserves no respect whatsoever. The memo is pure propaganda, and it’s not even shy about it.
LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL DISASTERS
The timing of the memo’s appearance is alarming. I have been saying for quite awhile now that Obama doesn’t really have to worry about the natural-born issue coming back to haunt him in court unless he attempts to suspend the Constitution. I know that sounds paranoid. And nothing would please me more than to be wrong on that prophecy. If my fears don’t come to pass, I will gladly wear the tin foil hat of shame. But the appearance of the updated CRS memo at this particular moment portends a Constitutional disaster.
If Obama attempts to suspend the US Constitution and/or declare martial law and/or suspend the 2012 election… chances of the natural-born citizen issue finding its way to the Supreme Court on the merits increase exponentially.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
Thank you FN, but it is not the thing I am after.
This explains the “sampling”, what I am after explains specifically how the birth certificate numbers were assigned.
Triple wrote: “I am glad Leo addressed this propaganda so quickly...”
Does it not dawn on you that lawyers who face-plant in court every single time might not be your best source of legal analysis? Donofrio’s self-administered fleecing in his latest birthed-related case left him so bitter he vowed never again to willing go to federal court.
“Does the fogbow crowd still want to hang their hats on this memo?”
I expect they’ll be O.K. with a report by the Congressional Research Service agreeing with them and Leo Donofrio not. In any case, the report is for Congress. I doubt members of Congress take much legal advice from either Fogbow or Donofrio.
you have private mail
Democratic Presidential Petition-Forging Scandal Investigation Ongoing
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2815018/posts
“The investigation of how the 2008 Indiana presidential campaign of Barack Obama forged enough signatures so that his name could appear on the Indiana presidential primary ballot is still ongoing according to a report in today’s South Bend Tribune.”
[snip]
It is definite now that Obama was part of, or heading up, a criminal endeavor.
But it begs the question as to "why"?? Congress didn't care about the definition of NBC in 2008. Why do they care now?? Why do they need a report that expands the definition beyond even the most twisted interpretation of Wong Kim Ark?? And why do we take the legal advice of one guy, when a 9-0 decision defined NBC exclusively as all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens??? Jack Maskell does NOT trump the Supreme Court.
Placemark and a wave!
"If it is known that the child..."
Difficult to challenge something, in this sense, that isn't there.
or rather...isn’t known.
Only when representing something to a court, and even then, they can misrepresent as long as there is a colorable argument. Keep in mind that court opinions relating to contentious issues often contain gross and radical misrepresentation of binding precedent. In other words, judges do it too.
-- Maskell had to have known that he was butchering the text. Surely that must be an ethics breach, no? --
There's "ethics breach" in the general sense of being honest; which Maskell likely knows he is coloring the presentation (that is, he knows he is avoiding certain text, and that he is substituting his own paraphrase where it suits his end); and then there is a threshold that bothers the enforcer. The threshold varies, depending on the case. Again, sometimes the court itself engages in misleading and avoiding inconvenient precedent.
By and large, the courts are honest (most civil cases and criminal trials); but firearms law, "NBC," abortion, commerce clause, etc. are pretty much a show of force - the rational logic in those situations is out the window.
edge919 wrote: “But it begs the question as to ‘why’?? Congress didn’t care about the definition of NBC in 2008. Why do they care now??”
Quite likely they’re getting letters from constituents. They probably got a few in 2008, but remember that until late in 2008, October or November, no one held the two-citizen-parent theory. The eligibility of the native-born may have been in doubt before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but not in our time.
edge919 wrote: “And why do we take the legal advice of one guy, when a 9-0 decision defined NBC exclusively as all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens???”
So quote that “exclusively” part of your favorite decision there. Show where, even in dicta, the Court said *only* that class are NBC.
Congress employs experts such as Maskell because Congress need real experts, not pretenders.
edge919 wrote: “Jack Maskell does NOT trump the Supreme Court.”
Darn sure trumps birthers.
Law suits are piling up and Secretaries of 57 States need official propaganda to dismiss them.
So 39 years ago, why did my Teacher tell our 5th grade class this theory in 1972? Could it be a time warp? Without 2 US citizens as parents, you have legitimate claims to foreign citizenship. That's a sorry ass fact for our sorry ass Kenyan president, isn't it?
“With Barry’s personal firewall (Holder) out of the way, there will be a period of time before Holder’s replacement is in position.”
The POOF (Presidential Office of Firewall) is no place for OJT.
=)
It doesn't show up on the recording too well but being there I can tell there were many chuckles at that and smirks from not only the commission members but as [he] was speaking it.
Just to set the record straight, the quote is "I have to been to 57 states now with 1 left to go, except Alaska and Hawaii, my staff wouldn't let me go even though I wanted to they just couldn't justify it."
So 57+1 left to go + 2 Alaska and Hawaii=60 SoS's
I'm so looking forward to seeing the talking heads spout that line so they can get bopped.
Since you've invested so much stock in him...Just what kind of "expert" is Maskell?
I know three people who voted for Obama, and intend to again.
I find it of no coincidence that Obama is not qualified and that these people voted for him. All three have strong foreign ties and think America sucks, like Obama. All three take joy in watching America go down the shitter. All three will vote for Obama again. Two out of three have Islamic roots. This is Obamas base in 2012, People who hate America.
We need to organize and settle on a document to post outside polling stations. We need two or three standard lines to add to all comments on the Internet.
Maybe a thread would help. We need a consistent message. It's bullshit that we have to tolerate a Kenyan/Indonesian president.
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.