Replies

Well, I am getting pretty good at reading cases, but this one was getting over my head, sooo I called my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., who is a very good lawyer. Here is what she said, and I quote, from the notes I scribbled:

You have to borrow a brain to understand something? I think i'm beginning to see the problem here.

1. Congratulations, Perry Mason!!! You just gave case law which supports the holding in Wong Kim Ark relating to allegiance and jurisdiction.

Just because a stream connects to an ocean doesn't make it suitable for sailing.

2. People like you are why they don’t let people without law licenses practice law. Or let chimpanzees play with loaded guns.(OH Tee Hee!!!, Fabia is a bigger b&tch than I am!!!)

Lawyers are so full of themselves. Most legislators are NOT lawyers. They are just ordinary people, yet we are meant to believe in the need for "experts" to tell us what the Amateurs meant when they created the law? R-i-g-h-t.

3. Venus is NOT a citizenship case. It is about a SHIP. (Oh, I am ROTFLMAO!!!)

Wong Kim Ark was not a Presidential eligibility case. You can start Rolling on the floor again when the relationship to your point finally dawns on you. :)

4. If you were a first year law student, you would have gotten an F on this “masterpiece” because you failed to apply the sited law to the facts of the instant case. (???)

Were the intent to apply the facts to the case, I would have done so. The intent was to acquaint an idiot with knowledge, which she apparently still does not comprehend.

5. To the extent “citizenship” is implicated at all, it is only to the extent of rights and obligations related to temporary residence, and has nothing to do natural born citizens. In fact, a NBC doing business with the belligerent, would have found themselves in the same straights.

It has to do with the fact that a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from an Era which overlapped the founder's specifically cites VATTEL as the best legal authority on the meaning of what constitutes a citizen. The fish do not jump any higher into the boat than this, and you seemingly still cannot catch one.

6. She said go to this place and cut and paste this:

If a citizen of the United States establishes his domicile in a foreign country between which and the United States hostilities afterwards break out, any property shipped by such citizen before knowledge of the war and captured by an American cruiser after the declaration of war must be condemned as lawful prize.

You may have missed it, but the case itself was decided years ago, and no further beating of that dead horse is necessary. If we should ever have need of trying to convince dead judges with facts and arguments about other dead people and property, i'm sure we will find you and your friend's advice useful, but as the point is to demonstrate what was the resources and thinking of these long dead judges regarding qualifications of citizenship, we have no need to worry about swaying their opinions at this late date. Something tells me that in their present state, they are even now likely more reasonable than are you.

She also said if you intend to continue attempting to practice law without a license, you should at least have some sort of idea what the case is about. She also said the first seven words (If a citizen of the United States) should have been your clue that this case was NOT was your friend.

I really shouldn't pick on your friend. God only knows what kind of crap you explained to her, and being your friend, she might likely support you even when you are acting like a kook. I personally don't give a crap about the fate of "The Venus", likely as not it is currently releasing methane in a rotting stratum of soil somewhere. Somehow you have gotten the notion that the disposition of the case is still in doubt and that someone should file an Amicus brief regarding it. No, the point of referring to it was an attempt to demonstrate to you that Vattel was a significant presence in law at this time of the nation's history, but I suspect nudging you into competence is a futile endeavor.

7. If you think it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, then that helps explain your 6 previous errors. (Ouch, she can be sooo castrating!!!)

There were no errors on my part but one; Assuming you had powers of comprehension beyond those you actually posses. The alleged errors to which you refer are all on your part for not comprehending the purpose of citing the case. Again, we aren't trying to argue the case before the court, we are simply trying to shove a little knowledge down the throat of a child. Unfortunately, the child spat it back up in a much more disgusting form as children are wont to do.

Oh, Tee Hee! Tee Hee!

And then it laughed, as a child is also wont to do after having soiled itself.

She hates this kind of stuff, says that I “owe her”, and I have to help her on a brief this weekend. But that is kind of fun to me.

Hopefully it's not a case about citizenship, you two would, without a doubt, insist on talking about ships. God help her client if you are assisting her. Few situations are improved by adding a moron.