Replies

Didn’t say that...and notice I amended my post to bring up your point about Hawaiian law -that as an operation of law...children born of a bigamous marriage would be considered legitimate.

Note I said as an operation of law ...because that is relevant in some of the legal discussion of British statutes as it concerns legitimacy.

I just want to see Apuzzo address the bigamous marriage and tell everyone how he is going to get around it - complete with law citations.

So a child of one United States Citizen is a Natural Born Citizen?

Not necessarily.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this--please.

I've been following a lot of this on WND.NET and Orly Taitz's website (http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/) and I'm doing a lot of this from memory. I even looked up the requirements on the web from the constitution but can't find the site I saw.

If he wasn't born in Hawaii, then in the 1960's, the U.S. citizen has to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years, 5 of those after the age of 14. His mother wasn't old enough to have lived in the U.S. for 5 years after 14. So if he wasn't born here, he would've taken the father's nationality, I think.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this--I don't want to state anything that's not right.

As for Barry Soetoro, according to what I read, he was an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim in Indonesia. In Indonesia, all other citizenships have to be renounced once you become a citizen. So even if he was a U.S. citizen and what I read is right (that he was an Indonesian citizen), he can't be a U.S. citizen from that alone.

Regardless if my information isn't right, there are so many questions, that if it were me trying to get a driver's license, they'd throw me out--let alone presidency. So why is he president again? And why has he spent so much money hiding all his information?

I have something for you to think about.
http://ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nichapter37/ch37annexc?view=Binary

Read the bottom of this chart.

Legitimate or Legitimated.

The section of the 1948 law that you referenced to me used the word legitimated. This means...illegitimate at birth but legitimated through subsequent marriage.

So does that section even apply..since the marriage was void at inception and there never was a subsequent marriage?

If you were already illegitimate at time of the bigamist marriage in Hawaii...would that law operate to legitimize you?

But this concept is not even relevant because the supposed marriage was before he was born.

It is a complicated matter and one that every attorney latching onto clients had better be familiar with before representing to their prospective client that Obama was or still is a UK citizen.