How Close were the FBI and Perkins Coie when the Obama “Birth Certificate” was Released?

The Post & Email ^ | 3 Jun 2022 | Sharon Rondeau

[CDR Kerchner]

(Jun. 3, 2022) — Toward the end of Tuesday’s edition of Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL1) told host Tucker Carlson that a “whistleblower” informed him that for at least a decade, the FBI has maintained a “working space” within the Washington, DC office of the international law firm Perkins Coie.

Not only did the FBI have its “working space” at the firm, Gaetz said, but the arrangement was also “operated” by then-Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussmann, who earlier Tuesday was acquitted by a Washington, DC jury on one count of lying to the FBI.

Sussmann’s indictment accused him of lying about his motive for requesting a meeting in September 2016 with then-FBI General Counsel James Baker and specifically, whether or not Sussmann represented a client.

According to Baker’s testimony in last week’s trial, during the meeting Sussmann told Baker he did not represent a client in the matter and had requested the meeting only to “help the Bureau.”

Prosecution exhibits released during the course of the trial allegedly show that Perkins Coie billed the Clinton campaign for the time involved in Sussmann’s meeting with Baker.

In its May 24 coverage of the trial, The New York Post reported that as it pertained to the origins of the FBI’s investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign stemming from Sussmann’s meeting with Baker and the now-infamous Steele “dossier,” Sussmann’s identity was placed on a “close hold,” meaning it was not revealed.

Perkins Coie has long represented Democrats in one of its specialty areas, “political law.” Former Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias, who last year launched his own “mission”-driven firm with several other Perkins Coie colleagues, served as counsel to Organizing for America (OFA), Barack Obama’s political organization. OFA later became a non-profit, “Organizing for Action,” ...

[Penelope Dreadful]

WTF are you??? Lost in time or something??? It don’t really mean squat what somebody said in committee, or who thought what. What matters is the language of the 14th Amendment. Why are you lost in 1868 and 1875 and rambling around the attic - years and decades before 1898. Those arguments were made in the WKA case, and they lost 6 to 2.

THEN, and this is BIG -

What kind of goober are you to simply declare the case was wrongly decided and THEN pretend that there is no controlling law??? You see, if you admit that there was decision, then whether right or wrong, there was a decision. And if you disagree with the decision, then that means that WKA says what I say it says, and not what you say. Or else you would not be disagreeing with it. THEREFORE, by your own admission, Obama was eligible for office thru the holdings in WKA. You may not agree with WKA, but it is the law until overturned.

Now, isn’t that easy. You can go to bed admitting that Obama was legal, while still disagreeing with the law.

Say Thank You, Penelope Dreadful!

[philman_36]

Say Thank You, Penelope Dreadful!

Why would I thank you? You've not helped me in any manner.

[Penelope Dreadful]

Why should you thank me??? Because I have straightened you out! You see, the first Birthers ignored WKA. It is there above. They ignored WKA because the case was death to their arguments. They wanted to pretend that Vattel’s book and some unconnected statements by John Jay was controlling law. The Ankeny Court tossed them out on their keisters, and told them all about WKA in the process.

The next generation of Birthers knowing that they could not get around WKA, tried to read it where it supported their arguments. That is where most of them are still stuck. I think that is where you were when you started tonite.

But now, I have helped you evolve into near-sanity! And this is without duct-taping you to a chair and cult-deprogramming you.

NOW, you admit that the case, in your opinion, was wrongly decided. That is not an unreasonable position. People disagree with cases all the time. BUT when you disagree with a decision, then that means that there was decision, and it said stuff that you disagree with.

Therefore, Obama was a legal president, even though you disagree with WKA.

That is really a major step, and I am proud of you! You have graduated from being a nut to being a contrarian! Kudos!

[philman_36]

Because I have straightened you out!

And you called me the insane one in the conversation.
You're straight up delusional.

The Ankeny Court tossed them out on their keisters, and told them all about WKA in the process.
If all you have to stand on is bad court decisions
you don't have much to stand on.

Therefore, Obama was a legal president, even though you disagree with WKA.
Uh-huh. Do you also believe Biden won and their was no election fraud so he is a legal President as well?

[philman_36]

Footnote 12...ANKENY v. GOVERNOR OF STATE OF INDIANA
Id. at 167-168, 22 L.Ed. 627.   Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.¹²
12.  Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.

Yeah, you go with that.

[philman_36]

A point of curiosity...did Ankeny declare Obama was a natural born citizen?

[philman_36]

Or was Ankeny just a case dismissed on technicalities?

Careful now...

[NNN]

Pardon me, Penelope, but “Wong Kim Ark” was dispositive of nothing but its own case, - “Wong Kim Ark” - which decided nothing regarding what it means to be a “natural born Citizen,” let alone what constitutes Presidential eligibility.

The subject is the meaning of the Constitutional requirement that “No Person except a natural born Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President.” No court has ever ruled on the issue.

But do tell me, how can one truly be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” - i.e., a Citizen by the very nature of one’s own birth, i.e., independently of any affirming act of law or political machination - unless one is born in the United States, of parents who are citizens of the United States?

[Penelope Dreadful]

My BFF suggested this:

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/a-place-to-get-the-really-right-answers-about-natural-born-citizenship/

[Penelope Dreadful]

You are not being honest. Honest people do not selectively edit an analysis by The Ankeny Court, saying this::

“Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

[and leaving out this part:]

Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . .”

If you have to lie and deceive people to promote your nonsense, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/the-case-the-two-citizen-parent-birthers-just-hate/

[philman_36]

Honest people do not selectively edit an analysis by The Ankeny Court...
If you have to lie and deceive people...

Back to the smear merchant I see.

[philman_36]

You are not being honest. Honest people do not selectively edit an analysis by The Ankeny Court, saying this::
“Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

You DO see that footnote marker, don't you? The number 12?
I posted the contents of the footnote.
Did it never occur to you that anything after that footnote
was not what I was calling to attention?

That's not "selectively edit", it's narrowing the focus.

[philman_36]

[and leaving out this part:]

Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . .”
Why repeat what I've, basically, already posted?

As I said...It's always about the questions.
Reply 65

[philman_36]

^^That one has really got to burn^^

[philman_36]

You are not being honest.
You wrongly accused me and lied in the process.

If you have to lie and deceive people to promote your nonsense, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

Perhaps you should look at your own words again.

[CDR Kerchner]

More on the subject of the nefarious closeness of the relationship between the FBI and the far-left DNC law firm of Perkins Coie is covered with this article at the Conservative Tree House site: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/06/01/extending-the-political-surveillance-discussion-with-new-revelations-the-fbi-had-a-workspace-inside-perkins-coie-dc-law-offices/

[CDR Kerchner]

U.S. Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
"But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

For more see: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Also see for the usually journalistic question categories: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf

You may wish to awaken your gaseous gas-lighting BFF for assistance.

[philman_36]

I've read it. No raids, nothing. Not that I've heard.
Or is it already too late to hide it now that the cat is out of the bag?
Interesting times we live in.

[Penelope Dreadful]

“The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.”

Nonsense. Sure it did. See WKA. The Court specifically stated:

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

Got that? If not, the WKA Court REPEATED itself! And cutting to the chase:

[T]herefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13

THE SAME RULE IS IN FORCE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN

About Wong himself, they said:

{T}he single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

WONG KIM ARK WAS A CITIZEN AT BIRTH, ALSO KNOWN AS A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

Then, in it’s ruling, the court said, about Wong Kim Ark, whose parents were not citizens:

[CDR Kerchner]

Most of what you wrote is dicta and not part of the holding. And in the holding for WKA they held that he was born a "citizen" of the United States, but the did not hold that he was born a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. Adjectives mean something, especially in the U.S. Constitution.

For a logic lesson for you and your dissembling and gas lighting gaseous BFF, who are per the teachings of Antonio Gramsci (the Italian Communist and linguist) redefining and ignoring the true meaning of words and phrases, and ignoring adjectives like "natural" which was put into the U.S. Constitution by the founders and framers see: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/euler-diagram/