Proof the Founders knew & accepted Vattel`s "naturels" to mean "natural born" (re:Obama eligibility)

puzo1.blogspot.com ^ | 10/08/2010 | Teo the Bear

[rxsid]

"Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel`s French "naturels" to mean "natural born"

by: Teo the Bear @ http://www.thebirthers.org

Found in the Library of Congress Website

If you look at Article III in the body of the text below, you will see,

Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointés par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en conséquence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d'autrui.

Going down further to the end you will find under number 3,

The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other

Translation by Charles Thomson secretary of the Continental Congress

This is pretty convincing proof that the framers did not need to wait for the 1797 translated edition of Vattel's Law of Nations. It appears they were well apt to translate it themselves. This accepted translation of 'naturel' in 1781, predates John Jay's 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years.

[Note by CDR K: This 'naturels' means 'natural born' translation in 1781 was subsequently confirmed by the 1797 translation of the part of the relevant sentence and paragraph in Vattel's Law of Nation, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, that is, "natural-born Citizens, are those born in the country, to parents who are citizens". Thus when the founders and framers wrote the Constitution in 1787 they clearly knew what "natural born Citizen" meant when they upgraded the Citizenship requirement in Article II from simply being a "born Citizen" as proposed by Hamilton to that of being a "natural born Citizen" as recommended by Jay as a strong check against foreign influence on the persons in the future who would be President and Commander of the military. And that meaning was understood to be a person born in the country to parents who are Citizens of the country. Such a person has sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to only the United States. That was the intent of the founders and framers for that legal term of art, natural born Citizen, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. This restriction on the type of Citizen who could be President was a national security issue to them back then and it is still a national security issue to us now.]

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/10/absoloute-proof-founding-fathers-knew.html

[Puzo1]

I received your “private” email. You attacked me publicly but then want to defend your position in “private” and tell the public that you are so doing. If you attacked me publicly why cannot you defend your attack of me publicly?

You blame me for your inability to find information on “Teo’s site” which I have nothing to do with.

You accuse me of being defensive when I have simply questioned why you have attacked me publicly on this site by saying you provided me with information for which I did not credit you when I do not even know who you are or what information you supposedly sent me.

You accuse me of attacking Leo Donofrio and Lt. Col Lakin on the radio which is a total fabrication.

You say that I have a “habit of picking winners and losers” without providing any explanation for your statement.

You add that my reply “shows guilt” and that you “can smell it from 1500 miles away.” From such a remark, it appears that you are the one who has “guilt” for some unknown reason.

You also accuse me of “degrading others because their case is different.” You fail to understand that if I state that a case is different from the Kerchner case it is because a court has dismissed that case and I have to distinguish that case to show that the Kerchner case does not also merit to be dismissed.

Needless to say, your response is delusional and not supported by any facts. You failed to answer any of my questions. You did not provide me with any information that you allege you sent to me and for which I did not give you any credit. Given that you accuse me of taking your information, I would expect you to tell me what that information is and to give me the medium by which and the date when you provided it. You failed to do any of this.

I do not even know who you are but evidently you follow my every moves. I do not understand why you have such a personal animosity toward me. From your response, it appears that you are a person who has some pent up anger toward me for some reason connected to Leo Donofrio. I do not control what Mr. Donofrio does or his results. May I suggest that you pick a fight with and waste the time of some other person. May I also suggest that you not pollute a site such as this with your little childish gossip.

[Kleon]

If Obama’s parents were not married when he was born, then he is a NBC. Ask any constitutional scholar who actually believes it is still valid & isn't trying to usurp it by calling it a living document, they will tell you the same thing.

I doubt there are any experts who agree with you. Which Constitutional scholars are you talking about?

[patlin]

Mario, NICE...Very Professional(sarc) I get it. Now you are going to take the same tactic with me, a contributor to your case both monetarily & with historical research I sent you that is part of your court docs, as you do with DrConspiracy & other drones. You want to go public with a private response, OK, let's go there...the gloves are off & here is the 1st few pieces of evidence...

J.D. Hayworth Publicly Throws Birthers Under the Bus; Accuses McCain of Distortion and Distraction Saturday, February 27, 2010 11:17:49 AM · 190 of 333 patlin to The Pack Knight

Also, I have acquired the complete 1904 Albany Law Journal article that was written by Alexander Porter Morse titled: “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” and will be sharing it soon. I thought it was odd that ALL but that one journal is available in the public domain and now I know why and soon you will too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2460430/posts?page=190#190

I didn't release this to the public out of respect for you & Charles & your case. I kept it quiet until your court docs were published on scribd. This particular Albany law journal prior to 1911 was the only one not yet in the public domain. It was NOT Teo the Bear or You that did the research & work to acquire it, but you took it as yours.

4/10/2010: KERCHNER v OBAMA (APPEAL) - Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Appendix - Transport Room

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29786481/KERCHNER-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Supplemental-Appendix-Transport-Room

Now on the other hand, professionals are not afraid to give credit where credit is due:

Posted 4/2/2010 by DurusHelm(I don't know who this is either): Morse Natural Born Citizen 1904 Description: “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)) Discovered by Linda at Constitutionally Speaking http://constitutionallyspeaking.word... Shared by Leo Donofrio at Natural Born Citizen http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29342223/Morse-Natural-Born-Citizen-1904

Teo the Bear has taken my research & NOT given me credit, so who is Teo, where did Teo get the doc, when was it posted & why is credit not given to the proper researcher. You seem to know who this is since you have become so defensive, maybe you care to expound on this further. There are many great patriots here like bushpilot1 that have worked & researched tirelessly for the preservation of the Constitution, to get the true meaning & original intent of the framers out in the public domain for the common lay person. Give credit where credit is due & quit trashing honest & upright patriots.

[rxsid]

If it is proven that Barry's parents were not legally married (definitely a probability), then he has a number of other legal issues (just a few):

1. A forged gov't document (alleged HI short form) proudly displayed on HIS campaign web site.
and
2. Any oath for office he has taken, would be fraudulent because his name could not be "Obama" absent proof Sr. adopted him or he (Barry) legally changed his name somewhere along the way.

[rxsid]

Exactly!

[patlin]

Very much so he has other issues as well as the HDOH.

Here is some other research I shared with Leo that I did NOT send to Mario after I heard he & Charles trash Lakin & Donofrio on the radio.
__________________________________________________________
Subject: Albany Law Journal 25 pg 465-470 IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS IN RELATION TO CITIZENSHIP, DOMICILE AND MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 1:10:00 -0600
From: xxxxxxx@unitelsd.com
To: “Leo Donofrio”

Leo,

I'm sure you are busy with the Chrysler suit, however I felt I needed to bring this to your & Stephen's attention. As always, apologies if I have duplicated information that you already have.

God's Grace & Peace be with you,

Linda
auto generated text, I added links:

( http://books.google.com/books?id=qrgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA469&dq=Vattel++%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Important%20Instructions%22&f=false )

pages 465-470
IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS IN RELATION TO CITIZENSHIP, DOMICILE AND MARRIAGE.

The following correspondence will explain the reason of the changes recently made by the Secretary of State in the diplomatic instructions in reference to the law of citizenship, domicile and marriage:

Law Bureau, May 1, 1885.

To the Honorable the Secretary of State:

Sir: I beg to call your attention to two sections in oar Consular Regulations and in our Diplomatic Instructions, which call for grave consideration. In our Consular Regulations we have the following:
(snip)

In reference to the first point of change, distinctly set forth in page 4 of Dr. Wharton's report, and in further support of it you will find that Vattel, in his Law of Nations, book 1, ch. 19, p. 101, fully sustains it; and further, in book 2, ch. 8, p. 173. Our own Supreme Court has of late years announced the same doctrine, with a clearness and force that cannot be misunderstood. Carlisle v. United States, 10 Wall. 147; and still more recently in the case of Radich v. Hutching, 95 U. S. 210.

The other change suggested by Dr. Wharton in these regulations as stated in his report, p. 7, touching “the domicile of children of citizens of the United States born abroad,” is based upon principles that are as universally recognized and established as the first change already discussed ; and I call your attention to Savigny on Private International Law, pp. 50-7. Our Supreme Court at a very early date, before the case in 3 Peters referred to by Dr. Wharton recognized this principle, and quoted all the leading authorities then known to the profession in the case of McIlvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209 (1808). Again, in the year 1817, in the case of The Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat. 76; and in 1852, in Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 400; in Jones v.Mc Master, 20 id. 8; in White v. Burnley, id. 235; in Mitchell v. United Slates, 21 Wall. 350; and in Desmare v. United Slates, 93 U. 8. 605; but more recently, and yet with more emphasis if possible, in the case of Lamar v. Mieou, 112 id. 452.

Authorities as to domicile of children bom abroad to Americans.

Mr. Dicey, an authoritative English cotemporary writer and a member of the Institute of International Law, in a treatise on the Law of Domicil, published in London in 1879, thus speaks:

” Every person received at (or as from) birth a domicil of origin. (1) In the case of a legitimate infant born during his father's life-time, the domicil of origin of the infant is the domicil of the father at tbe time of his birth. * * * The domicil of every dependent, person is the same as, and changes (if at all) with the domicil of the person on whom he is, as regards his domicil, legally dependent.” Pp. 4, 5.

“A domicil cannot be acquired by a dependent person through his own act. P. 106.”
( http://books.google.com/books?id=RLs0AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA13&dq=%22Dicey%22+%22treatise+on+the+Law+of+Domicil%22&lr=&as_brr=4&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Dicey%22%20%22treatise%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20Domicil%22&f=false )

Mr. Westlake, a leading English author on Private International Law, in the 2d ed. of his work on Private International law, says:

” Section 233. The original domicil of a child born in wedlock to a living father is the domicil of its father at the time of its birth.

“Section 237. The domicil of a legitimate or legitimated unmarried minor follows that of his or her father.”
( http://books.google.com/books?id=G70WAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Westlake%22+%22Private+International+Law%22&lr=&as_brr=4&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false )

Mr. Hall (International Law, Oxford, 1880, p. 188) after a recapitulation of the law of different countries (in which he gives an erroneous statement of the law in the United States), says:

“From the foregoing sketch of the various laws of nationality, it may be concluded that the more important States reoognize, with a very near approach to unanimity, that the child of a foreigner ought to be allowed to be himself a foreigner, unless he manifests a wish to assume or retain the nationality of the State in which he has been born.”
( http://books.google.com/books?id=TwWuAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA34&dq=%22Hall%22+%22International+Law%22+1880&lr=&as_brr=4&cd=12#v=onepage&q=%22Hall%22%20%22International%20Law%22%201880&f=false )

“La definition la plus exacte,d noire avis,a ite, donnee par lejuge des Etats-unis Hush, lorsqu’il dit que la domicile est ime residence dans un lieu particnlier accompagnee de preuves positives ou presutnees de Vintention de s’y fixer pendant un temps illimiti.

“Le domicile de V enfant est celui de ses parents on de ceux qui les remplacent suivant la loi.” Manuel de Droit International Public et Pi-ive. JPtir M. Charles Calvo. Paris, 1882, pp. 211, 212.

The late Professor Blunschll, in an article in the “ Revue de droit int.” for 1870, p. 107, states the rule as follows:

“Legitimate children acquire by their birth the nationality of their father; nor does it matter whether they were born at home or abroad.”

Sir It. Phillimore (International Law, IV, 589, p. 73), thus speaks: ( http://books.google.com/books?lr=&cd=12&as_brr=4&q=%22Phillimore%22+%22International+Law%22&btnG=Search+Books )

“XC. (a) The domioil of the legitimate uuemancipated minor who is notsui juris, and whose will therefore cannot conour with the fact of his residence, is the domicil of the father, or of the mother during widowhood, or—though it will be seen this is a disputed point—of the legally appointed guardian.

“XCI. It is an undisputed position of all jurists,that of his own accord, proprio morte (to borrow the expressionof Bynkershock), theminor cannot change his domicil. In our own country this maxim was enunciated by Lord Alvanley, master of the rolls, in the case of Somerville v. Somerville, and in America, in the oase of Outer v. 0’Daniel.

“It should seem, from all analogy, to follow that such change may be effected by the parents or guardians of the minor.”

To the same effect is Morse on Citizenship, 13, 141.
( http://books.google.com/books?id=GijrAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Morse%22+%22Citizenship%22&as_brr=4&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false )

In addition, I have also used this from Story's “The Conflict of Laws” in some of my articles: First, the place of birth of a person is considered as his domicil, if it is at the time of his birth the domicil of his parents ( definition of domicil as it pertains to national character begins on pg 50 http://books.google.com/books?id=IsJOmPyODiwC&printsec=toc#v=onepage&q=domicil&f=false )

[Kleon]

Want to spread rumors, better be able to back them up with facts, not crap aka misinformation cut & pasted from drconspiracy or politjab.

I don't even know who drconspiracy and politijab are, so I don't see how i could have copied them? What are you accusing me of copying?

[patlin]

Top US International Lawyer Defines “Natural Born Citizen” in 1904
patlin | 3/2/2010 | Alexander Porter Morse (1904)

Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:43:58 PM by patlin

I was going to write a separate article regarding this, but due to time constraints, I am just going to post this long hidden from public domain article regarding eligibility requirements of those attaining to the office of POTUS.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2462598/posts

[patlin]

Birthers have had trouble finding evidence this was a widespread belief at any time in our history. It certainly wasn't widely known in 1856 when the Republican party's candidate, John C. Fremont, ran for President with no objections, despite having a French father.

Or in 1854, when then Secretary of State W.L. Marcy responded to someone concerned about the citizenship of aliens by telling him, “...every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien at the time of his birth. This is in conformity with the English Common Law, which law is generally acknowledged in this country, and a person born of alien parents would, it is presumed, be considered such natural-born citizen, in the language of the Constitution, as to make him eligible for the Presidency.”

This is one of the oldest ploys that drones like you try to spread as if it is a fact when in fact it is NOT true. Fremont parents were not married, thus the illegitimate child follows the nationality of the mother.

[Kleon]

Fremont parents were not married, thus the illegitimate child follows the nationality of the mother.

Isn't it the birther position that to be a natural born citizen, both parents must be citizens? Are you now arguing a position that allows for someone to be a NBC with only one alien parent?

[patlin]

Final post on this. The gloves are completely off, let everyone decide for themselves the depth of my integrity...let them read for themselves the e-mail I sent to you, not just your description of what I said & didn't say...
______________________________________________________
Subject: Who is Teo freepers response
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 22:00:50 -0600
From: (redacted)@unitelsd.com
To: apuzzo(redacted)
X-Mailer: TupiMail - www.tupimail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=”iso-8859-1”
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID:(redacted)@webmail.unitelsd.com

Mario,

I never said you were Teo the Bear. I am not an idiot, I was asking who Teo is. The lack of direct link to the information on Teo’s site that Teo supposedly found on their own is all telling of someone hiding something. I went there & tried to find it & couldn't. So why be so defensive unless you feel a bit guilty for some of the trash talk you & Charles have done on the radio regarding Leo & his change of direction as well as Lt Col Lakin’s case. Or maybe it's your habit of picking winners & losers. Your reply shows guilt, I can smell it from 1500 miles away.

Mario, I have shared my freepers psydo at your site when posting under either Linda or constitutionallyspeaking. Whenever I post a freepers link I have given my freepers name so all knew who I was, so I think this is just more BS. I realize you guys are doing what we are not able to do, but on the other hand it does not give you a license to degrade others because their case is different. It only causes dissension in the ranks and we know that dissension only benefits the opposition.

Finally, your post at freepers shows your lack of professionalism. I hope & pray you see the error of yours & Charles selfishness in this constitutional crisis we all find ourselves up against.

God Bless,
Linda (last name redacted)

To: rxsid; bushpilot1
Does anyone know who this Teo the Bear is? I really don’t take to sites that do not credit the original sources of their information. Puzo has taken credit for some of mine that I sent him as if he discovered it himself. Donofrio is a true gentleman lawyer & so is Pidgeon, they always give credit where credit is due.

Great Work BUSHPILOT! We at Freepers know haw hard you researched to find this masterpiece of information!

13 posted on Saturday, October 09, 2010 8:13:25 PM by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: patlin
patlin,

First, I do not know who you are and only know you as patlin. I do not recall you ever sending me any information.

Second, you do great work and you are greatly appreciated by me.

Third, would you explain to me what “original sources of information” you sent to me and for which I did not credit you. Would you also tell me how you discovered those “original sources.”

Fourth, in what medium do you expect me to credit your work?

Fifth, I am Mario Apuzzo (”Puzo”), not Teo the Bear.

37 posted on Sunday, October 10, 2010 9:55:06 PM by Puzo1 (Ask the Right Questions to Get the Right Answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

[patlin]

Isn't it the birther position that to be a natural born citizen, both parents must be citizens? Are you now arguing a position that allows for someone to be a NBC with only one alien parent?

I can see that the laws of citizenship & nationality are well above your pay grade. Especially since you obviously can't take the time to actually read, study & learn from the laws or the historical evidence therefrom. There has always been a difference in how a child acquires citizenship. It depends on the legitimacy of the child at birth, born in wedlock & born out of wedlock. The problem that all you Obama drones have is that you are stuck in a fantasy world that believes that you can serve 2 countries at the same time, which Blackstone himself has repudiated.

The Oyez Project, Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS , 533 U.S. 53 (2001)

American father, alien mother - child born in country of alien mother - SCOTUS determined the child was not an American - the child (now adult) was ordered deported

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071

[Kleon]

It depends on the legitimacy of the child at birth, born in wedlock & born out of wedlock.

Yet you haven't provided one source that mentions legitimacy of the child in relation to natural born citizen status. I said before that birther arguments were never widely-accepted. In your case, I don't think anyone shares your thoughts.

[Puzo1]

You are the one who attacked me publicly on this site, accusing me of receiving information from you and not giving you credit. I now defend my good name in public and now you complain that I made it public. Now that I defend my name and my work, you are so concerned with respecting me. If you really cared to respect me, you would have called me on the telephone or sent me a private email about your concern. We could have discussed it as two mature adults and come to an understanding of your concern. I am a very reasonable person. I did not expect for you to betray my respect as you did in public for something that I have no idea I did.

You have yet to prove you sent me any information. Your posting of the Morse article on the internet does not prove anything. Give me specific evidence that you sent me the article and the date you sent it.

Even if you sent me the Morse article which I surely do not recall, you are way out of line. At this moment, I could not tell you from where I got the article. You will have to show me that you sent it to me. Also, even if you sent it to me, do you expect me to tell the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that you sent it to me? I am sure you know that “patlin” is not a citation to cite in any state or federal court.

Again, I am not Teo the Bear. If you have issues with him/her you should address it to him/her and not to me.

You admit that you intentionally did not send me the domicile information but rather sent it to Donofrio because as you allege I trashed Donofrio and Lakin on the radio.
First, provide a link to the radio program and the point where such trashing by me occurred. Second, you know that I have an active case (Kerchner) in the courts which now has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari. If you care so much about our nation and Constitution, why would you intentionally withhold what you consider to be important research information on the Obama eligibility issue from me and rather provide it to someone else who is not now in a position to have the courts act upon it? Do you consider that being a good patriot? I can see how much you really care about our nation and Constitution. It looks to me that you are more interested in driving your own ego than anything else.

I do not know what you personal problem is. You have not acted very rational in this matter. I do not know what else to tell you at this point.

[patlin]

Even if you sent me the Morse article which I surely do not recall, you are way out of line. At this moment, I could not tell you from where I got the article.

Here's a hint for you. Why don't you go to your files, right click on the doc, bring up its properties like I did mine & prove to us when you created/saved the word doc of Morse's that I sent you. What is the archive date & the name of the file in it's original form when you received it? Why are you so obstinate in not wanting to share when you acquired the file?

I wished I had saved all the previous e-mails I sent you as well as your very cordial and appreciative response in me sharing the information with you, however I have limited space at my web-mail site and thus, I have to purge quite often.

As far as the radio program, well, it might behoove you to spend some time backtracking & actually listening to the replays for yourself & Charles over the past year & a half. In a most recent interview the radio host made mention of Lakin & Charles almost took his head off, the male host was literally stunned as he stuttered and paused but then went on. I was so offended by the rudeness of a guest to the host of the show I turned it off.

I & many others realize the cases are all different, but to be rude & abusive and make out like this constitutional crisis is all about your case & no one else’s is selfish & disrespectful.

Again, I NEVER said you were Teo, I NEVER even made claim that you were Teo. I merely asked who Teo is & stated my displeasure at Teo taking credit for research not done by Teo.

If you care so much about our nation and Constitution, why would you intentionally withhold what you consider to be important research information on the Obama eligibility issue from me and rather provide it to someone else who is not now in a position to have the courts act upon it?

You already had the Webster Treatise which is full of other more pertinent legal references that lead to even more historical evidence that dates closer to & prior to the Constitution. Not my problem if you or Charles didn't take your research as far as you should have in order to make a stronger case. I'm not on your payroll but I do do thorough research and don't just stop with one reference or cite as you did.

Finally, talk about rationality. You came out of the dugout swinging and putting words in my mouth that you still continue to do. I posted the proof I acquired the Morse doc including dates & times. At your site neither you or Charles gave me credit, but you can credit Teo who also only shows the original source of research material as Teo feels Teo needs to aka pick & choose. As far as giving me credit in the court doc, give me a break. That statement is so childish it really doesn't even deserve a response but here I go. Any rational person knows that when filing court docs, especially law review articles, the law school/publisher & author of the doc are the rightful authors & owners thus accreditation goes to them.

So, good luck at the SCOTUS. Your going to need it because I don't even see Thomas turning from his avoidance of this most critical Constitutional case. May God soften the hearts of the judges so that they will see the error of their ways and do the right thing for the sake of God, Country & the Rule of Law which is the US Constitution.

[patlin]

Let me state this in a way a kindergartner could understand it:

NBC = One citizenship at birth; loyalty to only one country. IOW, the child is born without a choice of allegiance he/she must make upon the coming of age.

This is the law of nature that Blackstone spoke of when he said that a person can not owe allegiance to 2 masters/princes at the same time. There is only one person who can transfer citizenship & that is the legitimate parent according to the law. If the parents are not married, International natural law, which our country was founded upon, does not recognize the father at birth for political & citizenship purposes. When there are competing countries involved, the courts must look to International Law & Treaties between countries to determine the citizenship of the illegitimate child.

The only claim to being a NBC that would hold the weight of the law for Obama is if it was determined he was born in Hawaii to a very single mother AND IF he renounced his Indonesian citizenship within the time allowed by the law once he came of age as Miss Elg did in Perkins v Elg(1939). That is a pretty far fetched mountain to climb considering his documented on the record report of his nativity.

Like we say: “This IS The Biggest Fraud Ever Perpetrated on the American People”!

[TeoBear]

I am Teo the Bear and I run the website the Birthers. I been involved in this way before you, Leo, Steve, Mario and |Commander Kerchner, been on this subject since the early days with the Israeli Insider.

I found this information on the searching LOC website same as BushPiliot1 probably did. Was looking for the usage pre-Constitution convention. Sorry if I didn’t check freepers first before I published it in May or June.

But you know what I am not in this for publicity, not my style. I am just trying to get a usurper out of office. We at the Birthers are preparing an Amicus Brief and when Cmdr. Kercher asked me about this subject I emailed him the link to the article and he posted it on Mario’s site. It is just that simple, so try not to have, as Bart Simpson would say, a cow. I do not go to freepers anymore, because of personalities like yourself, and I am only here to set the record straight. If bushpiliot1 wants the kudos great he can have them, but I did not steal his work, it is there in the LOC. As for you get a life and stop attacking people, you sound like Zappam. I really don’t have time for you and pretty sure Mario Apuzzo has better things to do than defend himself from your vile and petty attacks. (But you know Mario loves to practice spiritual karate with Obots.)

If you don’t know what is happening at this moment, there are some people who want Obama out before the Kercher case is heard, because they want to make it moot, so what Obama already did stays in place (laws signed, EO’s issued, appointments made.) If Kercher is heard and Obambi is not a NBC everything he did is out, as is the socials democrats. There is also LtCol Lakin to worry about, he has real problems, and doesn’t need the chitter-chatter of bentout personalities.

[TeoBear]

This is TeoBear Patlin, get a life! No one is stealing from you.

You call your self a patriot, ok, that is reassuring. I am just glad to know you are not a publicity whore.

The birthers.org was set up for two reasons,

1. Not to give the Aliniskyites the satisfaction of sticking a label on us.
2. Since they did stick a label on us to use it to our advantage and post the information people need to understand what is going on.

[TeoBear]

PATLIN, here is where I found the Marse article at, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=134881 By the way don't see Leo crediting you, as Patlin, Linda or ConstitutionallySpeaking (or what ever name you will use tomorrow)

[patlin]

Maybe you should take to someone who cares and also, it would also behoove you to actually research & read ALL the posts pertaining to this before you spout off. That WND article is based on Leo's work in which Leo accredited me with finding the Morse article at his website. Read it & weep Teo, you did NOT get the article from WND, you are a LIAR! WND NEVER posted a direct link to Morse's article!

——————————————————————————————Posted: April 01, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

WND.COMMENTARY
Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace
Exclusive: Leo Donofrio spotlights fact prez has admitted U.K. ‘governed’ his nativity

...A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.
____________________________________________________________
Here is where I 1st posted that I finally had acquired the article:

J.D. Hayworth Publicly Throws Birthers Under the Bus; Accuses McCain of Distortion and Distraction Saturday, February 27, 2010 11:17:49 AM · 190 of 333 patlin to The Pack Knight

Also, I have acquired the complete 1904 Albany Law Journal article that was written by Alexander Porter Morse titled: “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” and will be sharing it soon. I thought it was odd that ALL but that one journal is available in the public domain and now I know why and soon you will too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2460430/posts?page=190#190

I didn't release this to the public out of respect for you & Charles & your case. I kept it quiet until your court docs were published on scribd. This particular Albany law journal prior to 1911 was the only one not yet in the public domain. It was NOT Teo the Bear or You that did the research & work to acquire it, but you took it as yours.

4/10/2010: KERCHNER v OBAMA (APPEAL) - Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Appendix - Transport Room

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29786481/KERCHNER-v-OBAMA-APPEAL-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-Supplemental-Appendix-Transport-Room

Now on the other hand, professionals are not afraid to give credit where credit is due:

Posted 4/2/2010 by DurusHelm(I don't know who this is either): Morse Natural Born Citizen 1904 Description: “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)) Discovered by Linda at Constitutionally Speaking http://constitutionallyspeaking.word... Shared by Leo Donofrio at Natural Born Citizen http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29342223/Morse-Natural-Born-Citizen-1904