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 ...
I agree MGHinTN.
Ping to post 13.
Note to future NBC constitutionalist litigants...that includes you, Dr. Taitz:
Place on the witness stand a Juris Doctor specializing in “legal construction” who also has a Ph.D. in English (preferably from Haaavard...there have got to be several available) who can testify to the proper straight up grammatical parsing of the MvH NBC language. Of course, this expert would be screened to exclude Marxists and fellow-travelors!
Such an expert would be able to survive a “Daubert challenge” hearing on his qualifications as an expert witness and his opinion that the inescapable meaning of MvH is that the “doubts” ONLY applied to the citizenship (not possible NBC status) of non-NBC births to aliens and foreigners.
An appeal of the GA SoS decision will be de novo, clean start, fresh slate. If Plaintiffs had gotten Obama removed from the GA ballot, he would have walked away and never had to testify under oath.
An appeal to the GA Superior Court by the Plaintiffs will mean Obama will be summoned to appear in Court and noticed to prepare to testify under oath and produce documents. Nancy Pelosi submitted herself to Georgia’s jurisdiction when she submitted a sworn statement to the GA SoS in 2008 Obama was eligible. Nancy is subject to subpoena and notice to produce.
The Obama house of cards is about to fall, but it will take time.
Thanks for link. Good research work.
Magic thinking, sorry. This thing is now too vital to the maintenance of establishment power for it to be allowed to come to a Constitutional showdown. You see, the Constitution is no longer binding if the establishment finds it inconvenient. They have figured out how to change the Constitutional application via non-Constitutional acts, and not one elected representative int he Federal heirarchy has the courage to challenge tham with the corruption so prevalent. The pirate Roberts sits atop the highest court and he was placed there for a reason or reasons most folks do not want to confront, so the corruption grows to putrefaction and the Republic becomes a stinking corpse before any of the once sovereign voters can do anything to stop it.
That is a great idea.
However, only the Constitution is required to refute the “just-born here” argument this ignorant buffoon of a “judge” has made.
I had a debate with an ignoramus about a year ago who stated the grandfather clause in Article II was no longer valid. His argument was that since it no longer applied (expired in 1776 based on his assessment), Amendment XIV could be used to define a natural born citizen.
After correcting him on the enactment date of the Constitution, I politely educated him on the term “ratification”. That ended the discussion abruptly.
An appeal of the GA SoS decision will be de novo, clean start, fresh slate. If Plaintiffs had gotten Obama removed from the GA ballot, he would have walked away and never had to testify under oath.
Your prior assessment on the admission of documents and the judge's decision was spot on. The "fix was in", per your statement.
In this case, one would hope the appeals court will not simply sustain the administrative court decision. Even if it did, one would also hope it gets moved up the chain fast to SCOTUS before this becomes an even larger Constitutional crisis than it already is.
The fix was in when the judge wanted a simple ballot exclusion so that no testimony/evidence/etc. would be on the records. In conference with the plaintiffs he could have easily been shown up for what was really intended so he had to go ahead with the sham hearing and find another way out-he did.
As I’ve repeatedly said, until the 14th Amendment is corrected to mean born owing only one allegiance, and that being to the United States per the 1868 Expatriation Act, all efforts to uphold A2S1C5 are futile. One doesn’t clean up manure by spraying the area with deodorizer 1st. Until the manure is taken away, no deodorizer is going to have any lasting affect.
Link please.
I find zotted former FReeper, LorenC, who is an actual GA attorney and one of the saner Fogbowers more persuasive.
This is what he is telling the non-lawyer Fogbowers to expect..and so far he is not being refuted by other big ego lawyer Fogbowers:
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=6845&start=7050
begin Fogbow quote
combatengineer wrote:
Question about the appeal. Since this was a hearing, not a trial (sorry Orly), when it gets to Fulton County Superior Court will it be treated as a full blown court case with the Birther Brigade trying to make another appearance? Or does that court act like a appeals court, which seems strange to me since normally that court would be the first level ‘trial’ court in normal cases. Any one help me out here????
(Loren reply)
The statute says that the review of the SoS decision is based only on the record. So there wouldn't be any new evidence or witness testimony; though oral arguments are a possibility.
end Fogbow quote
Attempting to amend the 14A to explicitly refute subsequent distortions would be futile and also inappropriate since there is nothing wrong with the 14A...only the subsequent abuse of the 14A, IMO. Attack the abuse of the 14A, not the 14A itself would be my recommendation.
ALL SCOTUS rulings from Dredd Scott up to the erroneous WKA ruling concluded that there were only 2 paths, A1 naturalization & A2-natural born. It's not rocket science, it's common sense that all men should be able to understand without having a legal degree because it has been the common law of ALL nations from time immemorial, thus the reason the 1868 Expatriation Act was passed. Go back & read the congressional records, 2 paths, either born naturally to a citizen father, or naturalized under A1. Period. Miller, Waite & even Gray in the Elk case all adopted it as the law of the land and defined it as such.
If one isn't bound by the Constitution as to actually want to put 14th Amendment citizenship back in its box, then one is not truly committed to A2 citizenship which IS defined by the 14th. The word "natural" was not put in because it would have been redundant since all born or naturalized are already defined to be subject only to the United States per the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction". Equal in all except that only those born can attain to the presidency.
Therefore the 14th changed nothing. However usurpation by an ignorant populace has.
When will somebody handle the fact that Obama was not born in the United States? If he were, he would have a birth certificate. As for his transcripts from school and why nobody seems to remember him, perhaps if they asked about Barry Sotoro they would remember. Do you remember when he was a candidate that he said he used the system well? That is because he got every dime he could from the federal government, by lying, by cheating, by declaring himself to be a foreign exchange student.
If judge R. Barclay Surrick had any intestinal fortitude, we would not be here right now. He had the chance when Philip Berg brought suit against Obama in Philadelphia Pennsylvania. He demanded Obama produce a birth certificate, then yellowed out before the 2008 election.
LorenC mentioned a GA statute, but didn’t identify it.
Here’s the statute for an appeal of a GA administrative hearing:
O.C.G.A. 50-13-13 (2010) 50-13-13. Opportunity for hearing in contested cases; notice; counsel; subpoenas; record; enforcement powers; revenue cases
(a) In addition to any other requirements imposed by common law, constitution, statutes, or regulations:
(1) In any contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice served personally or by mail;
(2) The notice shall include:
(A) A statement of the time, place, and nature of the hearing;
(B) A statement of the legal authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held;
(C) A reference to the particular section of the statutes and rules involved;
(D) A short and plain statement of the matters asserted. If the agency or other party is unable to state the matters in detail at the time, the notice may be limited to a statement of the issues involved. Thereafter, upon application, a more definite and detailed statement shall be furnished; and
(E) A statement as to the right of any party to subpoena witnesses and documentary evidence through the agency;
(3) Opportunity shall be afforded all parties to be represented by legal counsel and to respond and present evidence on all issues involved;
(4) Unless precluded by law, informal disposition may be made of any contested case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, or default;
(5) Unless specifically precluded by statute, in addition to the agency, any contested case may be held before any agency representative who has been selected and appointed by the agency for such purpose. Before appointing a hearing representative, the agency shall determine that the person under consideration is qualified by reason of training, experience, and competence;
(6) The agency, the hearing officer, or any representative of the agency authorized to hold a hearing shall have authority to do the following: administer oaths and affirmations; sign and issue subpoenas; rule upon offers of proof; regulate the course of the hearing, set the time and place for continued hearings, and fix the time for filing briefs; dispose of motions to dismiss for lack of agency jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties or for any other ground; dispose of motions to amend or to intervene; provide for the taking of testimony by deposition or interrogatory; and reprimand or exclude from the hearing any person for any indecorous or improper conduct committed in the presence of the agency or the hearing officer;
(7) Subpoenas shall be issued without discrimination between public and private parties. When a subpoena is disobeyed, any party may apply to the superior court of the county where the contested case is being heard for an order requiring obedience. Failure to comply with such order shall be cause for punishment as for contempt of court. The costs of securing the attendance of witnesses, including fees and mileage, shall be computed and assessed in the same manner as prescribed by law in civil cases in the superior court;
(8) A record shall be kept in each contested case and shall include:
(A) All pleadings, motions, and intermediate rulings;
(B) A summary of the oral testimony plus all other evidence received or considered except that oral proceedings or any part thereof shall be transcribed or recorded upon request of any party. Upon written request therefor, a transcript of the oral proceeding or any part thereof shall be furnished to any party of the proceeding. The agency shall set a uniform fee for such service;
(C) A statement of matters officially noticed;
(D) Questions and offers of proof and rulings thereon;
(E) Proposed findings and exceptions;
(F) Any decision (including any initial, recommended, or tentative decision), opinion, or report by the officer presiding at the hearing; and
(G) All staff memoranda or data submitted to the hearing officer or members of the agency in connection with their consideration of the case; and
(9) Findings of fact shall be based exclusively on the evidence and on matters officially noticed.
...
(c) Except in cases in which a hearing has been demanded under Code Section 50-13-12 [an aggrieved taxpayer filing against Department of Revenue *], subsection (a) of this Code section and the other provisions of this chapter concerning contested cases shall not apply to any case arising in the administration of the revenue laws, which case is subject to a subsequent de novo trial of the law and the facts in the superior court.
[note *] comment and emphasis are my own.
I disagree. The Minor court pre-dated WKA and the Minor court stated that as of the date of that decision there were at least three classes of citizens:
1. NBC: born in the country of citizen parents: NO DOUBT (not dicta because it was “reached” to declare Minor to be this type of citizen...thus precedent, IMO)
2. Born in country to aliens and foreigners: DOUBT (dicta because it was “not reached” because Minor had citizen parents...in WKA a subclass of these births were declared to be citizens at birth but NOT NBC at birth, IMO)
3. Naturalized citizens
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. 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 ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized
Therefore, persons born with a foreign parent and owing allegiance to a foreign nation are not thereby subject to the "COMPLETE" political jurisdiction of the United States. The word "natural" before born was not needed because the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" defines those who are born & naturalized, owing one allegiance, either at birth or naturalization.
1859 Buchanan Admin Op (9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859)) that is the foundation of the 14th Amendment:
“The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”
“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”
1868 Expatriation Act, passed just days after the 14th & is called the "Sister Act" to the 14th:
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed
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 sub-classes.
One subclass of citizens at birth, NBC, NO DOUBT was eligible to be POTUS. Another class of citizens at birth was identified in ARK as being the children of aliens and foreigners, such as ARK, about whom there previously was DOUBT (as stated in Minor).
Incontrovertably, after 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
The Elk court affirmed the Minor court's definition of NBC and used it to declare Elk to be in the A2 NBC class of citizen at birth, not in the 14A class of citizen at birth.
The Elk case is NOT on point with the facts and circumstances of Barry's birth and life and is not a precedent for assessing his NBC status.
The Elk was case about the US born child of naturalized parents (mother got US citizenship when father naturalized...so two US citizen parents at birth) who was expatriated by her parents at the age of 4, IIRC. After Elk was denied reentry to the US as an adult, SCOTUS said Elk retained her NBC status from birth because Elk herself didn't renounce her US citizenship.
“LorenC mentioned a GA statute, but didn’t identify it.
“Here’s the statute for an appeal of a GA administrative hearing:
“O.C.G.A. 50-13-13 (2010) 50-13-13. Opportunity for hearing in contested cases; notice; counsel; subpoenas; record; enforcement powers; revenue cases”
The statute above, when searched, comes up as the hearing statute under which Malihi heard the eligibility challenge to Barry. It is NOT an APPEALS statute, IIUC:
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-50/chapter-13/article-1/50-13-13/
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 50 - STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 13 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 50-13-13 - Opportunity for hearing in contested cases; notice; counsel; subpoenas; record; enforcement powers; revenue cases
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.
