Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959
If I remember correctly, John didn’t include the e-mail because the e-mail itself says that its contents are not to be disclosed. However, that very e-mail would be discloseable to the public if requested in a UIPA request so there shouldn’t be any problem posting it. Maybe I’ll mention that to John. I have seen the e-mail.
Now the requests that YOU say you sent to the DOH.... I haven’t seen. Why is that?
You apparently have not read the actual case of The Venus, not surprisingly, either that our you do not understand what it says. It is much about citizenship as an essential element of the controversy between prize claimant and defendants.
Either you are extemely dense or just stupid. First you cite something Cicero said about the Roman Re;ublic as if it were English common law and then you engage in disinformation by saying that I said, which I did not, that the French invented the term "citizen" at the time of their revolution. As you pointed out it goes back to Rome and classical Greece. You may have heard of the Latin word "cives."
You seem to be historically quite ignorant. Let me point out that the great struggle at the time of our Revolution was between republicanism and monarchism. Under monarchies the law discussed "subjects" as in subjects of the King as lord, dating back to feudalism. By contrast we and the French revoloutionaries looked intitially, before the excesses of the French Revolution, upon ourselves as fellow republicans in an otherwsie monarchistic world, as citizens of a Republic, like all those that Madison studied under Witherspoon and of whose demise at the nands of demagogues and foreign influences they were quire keenly aware and very concerned about. That is the point, which you seem to assidiously miss and misrepresent. It is kind of like misrepresenting that the ancient Roman Republic concept of citizen of Rome is a term of English common law of the 1700's.
Is it beyond your comprehension to see that Marshall was precisely, in the quote from Vattel that he used, quoting Vattel's concept of being a "citizen" who is natural born in the sense of being the child of a citizen father and mother? Perhaps you have dyslexia and cannot comprehend phrasing that means the same in more words than the more concise "natural born citizen."
You seem to take pride in trolling for those who would destroy our Constitution and doing it with such lack of comprehension and delight in misinforming. History will expose the fraud for whom you troll. You must be concerned that he and his Ci-cago gang won't be able to use you and others like you to destroy the Constitution and that it will not only be saved but will save the day as it was designed to do, against essentially foreign influences and demagogues who can, at least temporarily, stir up the masses.
It’s the first lesson in the “Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire School of Filing Legal Complaints and Stuff.”
Oh yah!
STE=Q
“You have told us what the Attorney General has not done. You have not shown us any “position” that he holds on any issue whatsoever.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
His position:
The Hawaii Attorney General’s office HAS refused to corroborate Obama’s Hawaii Birth or that he {Obama} was born in Hawaii — as Fukino PUBLICLY stated.
Of course, nobody’s forcing you to draw conclusions you disagree with.
If there is some confusion take it up with the Attorney General’s office.
STE=Q
Oh for heaven’s sake. You don’t actually think highly of Orly Taitz do you?
Still looking for his position there. You seem to be unwilling to tell us what it is. Might it be because (surprise, surprise) you actually have no idea?
CAN YOU IMAGEN HOW FAST WE WOULD GET RESULTS IF EVERYONE DID WHAT YOU ARE DOING?
If the men in this country had half the courage that you ladies have we would take are country back tomorrow!
Unfortunately, some men (and I use the word loosely here) would rather attack you for having the courage — that they apparently lack — to go after our rogue “leaders” in government.
Hats off to you!
I LIKED YOUR POST SO MUCH I WANTED TO POST IT AGAIN, AS FOLLOWS:
Somebody tell me how to bring a criminal complaint against the DOH and I’ll do it.
I contacted the director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety. No response.
I contacted my own sheriff. He said it was interesting and he’d pass it on to the County Attorney, but that they don’t have money to investigate that.
I contacted my US Attorney’s office. They said they only take complaints from law enforcement offices or from the FBI.
I contacted the FBI earlier on to report forgery and they told me 3 times that the FBI doesn’t investigate forgery.
I contacted the Hawaii Ombudsman’s Office and they said they couldn’t investigate because there were crimes involved.
I contacted the Hawaii AG early on to ask him to investigate the communications that led to Fukino’s JUly 27 statement that contradicted the legal reason she has given all along for not saying what’s on Obama’s BC. No response.
I contacted every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate. So Espero filed a bill to label me a “vexatious requestor”.
People really, really need to know how seriously bad our law enforcement system is. We knew it when the Durham DA used the Duke lacrosse team rape charges to get elected by inciting black-white tensions. We knew it when Eric Holder’s DOH dropped voter intimidation charges against the NBPP members. WE knew it when Nidal Hasan was promoted rather than being disciplined or canned for being a terrorist.
People still think that the FBI and/or CIA does a background check on elected officials. I contacted my SOS and was told that the election process is the background check. I asked how we’re supposed to do a background check when we can’t have access to official documents. He said the media does it for us and they would never play politics - and besides, every politician has to sign a statement saying they’re fine, and a politician would never lie. (Can you believe somebody this dumb is SOS?)
I contacted my governor and he said he trusted that the people who were supposed to check Obama’s eligibility did their job. (Like Nancy Pelosi - the one who signed a single, special statement of Obama’s eligibility for Hawaii because Hawaii officials refused to do their normal protocol and certify eligibility?)
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Unless we wake up quick, America is so screwed.
END
STE=Q
I have seen the e-mail where she said that.
I have not seen your alleged correspondences with the DOH. Why is that?
“Still looking for his position there.”
People can draw their own conclusions without a government paid TROLL explaining it to them.
They can read the article and decide for themselves what the implications are.
In case anyone missed this:
Trolling 101:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts
Night all!
STE=Q
FYI:
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Mr. Charlton replies: Anyone who talks to the press has the right to restrict the usage of the actual words he/she says…that’s an established principle, as their words belong to them. Sometimes they ask to comment off the record; sometimes on the record; Nagamine wanted to respond, but not be quote…I therefore paraphrased….I think it is obvious why she did not want to be quoted.
If you don’t like that, then call her office and demand a quotable response. Bennet was the former Assitant US AG in Hawaii, I sure hope his office knows what the statutory duties of HI officials are, and what a NBC is….and if his office refuses to admit what they know about State and Constitutional Law, what are they receiving tax payers’ money for? To go to the beach and surf?
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/02/hi-attorney-generals-office-refuses-to-corroborate-obamas-hi-birth/
The same reason I have not seen your alleged e-mail.
Duh!
Great... so we have established that at best it was a paraphrase. At worst, who knows.
[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
Some States made citizenship conditional on either parent in terms of their citizenship, such as Kentucky: “[E]very child, wherever born, whose father or mother was or shall be a citizen of Kentucky at the birth of such child, shall be deemed citizens of that State.” One common law found in a number of States that defined those born as citizens read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.”
Until the 14th Amendment was passed in reaction to what the law was found to be in Dred Scott there was no national law of citizenship.
When we aak the question:
Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
Here is the accurate answer:
It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.
Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.” House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”
Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.
Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.
It remains the case that the national law at the time of the 14th Acmendment, before it was passed, did not adopt the approach set out by Coke in Calvin's case to solve the problem of the Stuart succession to the crown of England in the person of James I and in fact in the period before its passge the law as declared was that of Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, however unattractive that may have been.
You know Perkins Coie briefs in a manner very similar to your manner of posting, with great misrepresentation and inaccuracy. Let's face it you and your master rely upon intimidation of the judiciary and having your state run media and captive "intellectuals" rely upon ridicule rather than history and the actual law.
You know Perkins Coie briefs in a manner very similar to your manner of posting, with great misrepresentation and inaccuracy.
~~~
And supreme arrogance and threats.
Interesting he claims his right to be an ‘ardent Zionist’ but alleges that our ‘ardent Constitutionalists’ are racist. Go figure.
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.