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,” ...

[CDR Kerchner]

So you gaseous gaslighters including your BFF have no comment about this additional new article on the subject of this thread, i.e., the suspicious closeness of the corrupted FBI and the far-left DNC law firm of Perkins Coie.

See 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/

[Penelope Dreadful]

“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.”

It is the same thing. The WKA court spent a lot of time explaining that to you. I think that you simply do not have the inner strength to admit that you have been on a goose chase for the last 12 years or so. And a very silly goose at that. As the Ankeny Court told Birthers years ago, and based on WKA:

Id. at 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at 462 (quotations and citations omitted). The Court held that Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States “at the time of his birth.”14 Id. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

Whatsisname Philman finally admitted the truth last nite. He said, [about WKA] - “It’s a bad ruling, just like Roe vs Wade was.”

See, that is a defensible position. Two of the eight justices agreed that it was wrongly decided. BUT it was decided, and it is law. Spouting off cases prior to WKA, or Vattel, or John Jay, or 1868 Congressional debates to make it go away, is unworthy of a reasonable person, and silly to boot. Two citizen parent Birthers are on the level of your average Sovereign Citizen, which is to say pretty low.

I try to be respectful of my elders, but you need to grow up and stop promoting this nonsense.

As far as the substance of this article, I figure the FBI is in bed with the Democrats, so I put nothing past them. However, believing that Obama was not born in the US, is simply another conspiracy theory, and I do not mean anything bad by saying that. It is just not one that I believe in. My BFF used to believe in it, and she wrote some very cogent articles on it. [according to her] You should look them up some time.

[CDR Kerchner]

A "citizen" of the United States and a "natural born Citizen" of the United States are NOT the same thing. And WKA 1898 in its decision did NOT state that they were the same thing in their holding. You keep making that false statement. Also, reading the actual presidential eligibility clause in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 clearly reveals that they are not identically equal. You and your gaseous gaslighting BFF advisor are linguistically and logically challenged, or as is more likely the case, you are deliberately dissembling and engaging in gaslighting about what the founders and framers original intent and understanding of what "natural born Citizen" meant, i.e., sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth.

You also keep ignoring a subsequent relevant case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court after WKA (1898), i.e, Perkins v. Elg (1939):

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.

Some visual aides for you and Euler Logic Diagram to help you grasp what the adjectives "natural born" mean when placed in front of the noun "citizen". A "citizen" created by Natural Law and not by any man-made law, treaty, act of congress, or constitutional amendment.

[philman_36]

You're supposed to ping somebody if you name them.

Whatsisname Philman finally admitted the truth last nite. He said, [about WKA] - “It’s a bad ruling, just like Roe vs Wade was.”
I stated it was a bad ruling, I didn't "admit" anything. Surely you aren't THAT stupid.

[philman_36]

Surely you aren't THAT stupid.

It is the same thing.

Then again, you probably are.

[philman_36]

I try to be respectful of my elders...

I'm 60. Do I count as an elder?
Have you shown me respect?

Let me guess, you tried and failed so you just quit trying, right?

[philman_36]

You also keep ignoring a subsequent relevant case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court after WKA (1898), i.e, Perkins v. Elg (1939):

Look, Penny, CDR has given you the case you demanded.

But you won't address anything but Ark, right?

[Penelope Dreadful]

You said, “You also keep ignoring a subsequent relevant case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court after WKA (1898), i.e, Perkins v. Elg (1939):
Look, Penny, CDR has given you the case you demanded.

But you won’t address anything but Ark, right?”

HUH??? Am I dreaming this??? First, You want me to discuss a case that RELIED ON WONG KIM ARK??? Why??? That is what I have been saying all along, that Wong Kim Ark is good law.

Second, Frankly, I did not want to waste time on some more faulty reasoning by Birther Geniuses. Here is where you guys got FLAKY once again. You said and Kerchner said:

“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.”

I capitalized BECAUSE, because that is a Stupid Birther Conclusion. Elg v. Perkins ruled she was a natural born citizen because she was born here in the United States. The fact that her parents were naturalized citzens of the United Statess was merely a FACT of the case, and not the point of the decision. Which, anyone with a modicum of Reading Comprehension skills would have gotten from the language in the case, to wit:

1)”First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866,

Page 307 U. S. 329

14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case — THAT A CHILD BORN HERE OF ALIEN PARENTAGE BECOMES A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES — the Court adverted to the

“inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 169 U. S. 668.

(Remember that the WKA Court said that Wong was a natural born citizen because he was born here, even though his parents were Chinese?)

2) Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. [Footnote 2]

Page 307 U. S. 330

and;

3) Petitioners contend that respondent’s acquisition of derivative Swedish citizenship makes her a person who has been “naturalized under Swedish law,” and that therefore “she has lost her American citizenship” through the operation of this statute. We are unable to accept that view. We think that the statute was aimed at a voluntary expatriation, and we find no evidence in its terms that it was intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, TO ELECT TO RETAIN THE CITIZENSHIP ACQUIRED BY BIRTH and to return here for that purpose. If, by virtue of derivation from the citizenship of one’s parents, a child in that situation can be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law, still we think, in the absence of any provision to the contrary, that such naturalization would not destroy the right of election.”

I made it easy and capitalized it for you! ACQUIRED BY BIRTH and NOT “acquired by birth to two naturalized citizens.”

Sooo, that is why I did not respond to Elg v Perkins. Because it relies on WKA in part, and because you Birthers continue to misrepresent everything that you touch.

You guys began that process by ignoring WKA in the Ankeny suit, then you promulgated a bunch of crap about natural born citizenship that the Ankeny Court told you was crap, and dismissed your lawsuit, not on a technicality, but because you failed to state a cognizable legal basis for those particular claims, and then you went into Full Birther Mode and created a whole Bunch of Fantasy Law, -— just like Sovereign Citizens do.

It is insane, and you Birthers have been at it for what 10 or 12 years??? No Court has ever given you the time of day, any more than any Court has recognized The Fringe on the Flag Laws of the Sovereign Citizens.

What interests me, is what your participation in this craziness has done to you all on a personal basis. How far does this bizarre belief intrude into other parts of your life? Have you simply become numb and cult-like in your belief system and oblivious to reality? Because, after 10 or 12 years, one simple little legal concept, that a person born here, who is not the child of an invader or a foreign diplomat, is a natural born citizen, - that concept should not be so hard to get. I mean, it is all through Wong Kim Ark, numerous times, and in pretty basic language.

I can not help but think of this, in connection with two-citizen-parent Birthers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD4q3leE5Uw

[philman_36]

But you won’t address anything but Ark, right?”

Ummm, this was you setting parameters, not me.

Now, if you have a relevant case, then present it. BUT, it has to be an American case that is AFTER Wong Kim Ark, not before, and of a USSC level.

And the REST of your diatribe should be to the poster who ACTUALLY posted the case...and that wasn't me!

CDR, this dipwad doesn't even know who he is talking to any more.
See reply 128.

[philman_36]

(Remember that the WKA Court said that Wong was a natural born citizen because he was born here, even though his parents were Chinese?)

Nowhere in WKA does the Court state that Ark was a
natural born citizen...ever...anywhere...by any means.
Citizen, not natural born citizen.

Did you think that after all of that arguing that the judge suddenly FORGOT to put "natural born" in front of citizen?

[philman_36]

You guys began that process by ignoring WKA in the Ankeny suit...

You're LYING again! Nobody left out WKA as that portion of WKA you said was ignored had already been posted!

[philman_36]

... and of a USSC level.
Yet Arkeny isn't on that level and you use it.

It's like you were...setting things up.
Nah...you wouldn't do something sneaky...would you?

snicker

[Penelope Dreadful]

Now you are back to your same old lying and dissembling crap.

FROM WKA, “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.”

and

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the 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 STATED ABOVE, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

The first paragraph I gave you WAS STATED ABOVE, and more than once.

Now, you can continue to pretend not to get it. But I think everybody not in your cult gets it.

And, if you are 60 years old, then you are way too old to be engaging in this kind of nonsense. You are way too old to be pretending that you don’t get it. Grow up.

[philman_36]

That is what I have been saying all along, that Wong Kim Ark is good law.

Yet you're using it as precedent, not good law.
Again, just like Roe vs Wade has been used.

[Penelope Dreadful]

I was very upfront about Ankeny. IIRC, I simply told you that was how a modern court would read Wonk Kim Ark, and they did!

Did Ankeny affirm Wong Kim Ark, or did Ankeny overturn Wong Kim Ark???

[philman_36]

But I think everybody not in your cult gets it.

WOW! I have a cult?!

There's a book I would like to recommend to you...

[Penelope Dreadful]

“That is what I have been saying all along, that Wong Kim Ark is good law.
Yet you’re using it as precedent, not good law.”

Huh??? Have you started drinking already???

[philman_36]

...I simply told you that was how a modern court would read Wonk Kim Ark...
WHERE? What reply?

...a modern court...

I've got a few names to call the court and "modern" isn't one of them.

Did Ankeny affirm Wong Kim Ark, or did Ankeny overturn Wong Kim Ark???
You're going to have to tell me your truth because anything else is WRONG.
So, answer that question with yo truth, yo se'f!

[Penelope Dreadful]

No, you give me yo truf. Simple Question:

Did the Ankeny Court Affirm or Deny the Wong Kim Ark Decison?

And here is another question for you! How did the Wong Kim Ark define Natural Born Citizenship? Please quote any of the relevant statements that Court made.

Thank you!

[philman_36]

Huh???

Isn't Wong Kim Ark being used as precedent in Arkeny?

Have you started drinking already???

No, but it appears to be that you have.

You’re using Wong Kim Ark as precedent, not good law, when you throw out Arkeny.
Wong Kim Ark has a decision that has nothing to do with NBC.
Arkeny relies on a case that has nothing to do with NBC and you tout it. Got it.