Posted on 11/10/2008 8:27:51 PM PST by virgin
NEW JERSEY VOTER VS. OBAMA AND McCAIN ON "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" STATUS NOW BEFORE US SUPREME COURT - DONOFRIO v. WELLS - STANDING NOT CHALLENGED IN LOWER COURTS - OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE NOT MAIN ISSUE
(Excerpt) Read more at democratic-disaster.com ...
You’re welcome, DakotaGator. It has been over four years since we’ve ‘spoken’ on FR! Time flies.
If you don’t have time to read the entire thread, begin at #291.
How terrible! Who are these troll scum (or is it scummy trolls?)?? I’ve been on this site problably 200 times a year for 3+ years. Just didn’t sign up as I commit too many typos. Now that I’ve joined I see you have a nice spell-checker/ preview thingie, though I don’t quite get the spell-checker sometimes. Anything more u want me to say?
I thought it a compliment, yes. As explained to fellow guard- I’ve been on plenty. I’ll tell you I just haven’t gone much into threads. Happy? Kitty please?!
So tell me, how long has the term “zot” or “zotted” been going? Ahh shucks, then y’all would have to come up with another....
maybe time for a code change- the BO-trolls are probably all gone now anyways- smarter ones would have sussed it in a week, Did you catch those couple females who quit their posts last week of campaign- one who came out on hillbuzz?
Rush & Hannity read confession of another a week ago? Their job is done! How’m I doin’? doesn’t matter.
Its all to the PTB now. The electorate got hornswaggled.
Just finished reading the abbreviated thread as you suggested. Felt good.
Glad to see you’re still in the fight for freedom making every punch count!
thanks LucyT.
Second Eligibility Related Action Weathers Procedural Roadblocks
(Trouble for Obama, the Kenyan?)
America’s Right | 11/12/08 | Jeff Schreiber
Posted on 11/12/2008 4:03:54 AM PST by solfour
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2130641/posts
BIRTH CERTIFICATE VAULT COPY ALERT
Atlas Shrugs | November 12, 2008 | Pamela Geller
Posted on 11/12/2008 2:04:27 PM PST by Amityschild
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2130993/posts
and thanks Sgt_Schultze:
Polarik’s Final Report: Obama’s ‘Born’ Conspiracy
The Greater Evil | 09/17/2008 | Polarik
Posted on 09/17/2008 11:58:31 AM PDT by Polarik
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2084512/posts
This IS lengthy - but WILL put all this “natural born” vs. naturalized crap to bed.
“Natural-born means natural-born.”
YOU are putting YOUR definition of “natural born” into the fray.
YOU DON’T KNOW if the Founding Fathers intended or DID NOT intend this to include children of U.S. citizens born abroad while their parents were acting as agents of the U.S. Government (i.e. an American military officer). NOBODY DOES. That is for SCOTUS to decide as it HAS NEVER been clearly defined in the Constitution.
In order to do this, they would have to examine the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation, and the writings of our Founding Fathers.
Additionally, since the Founding Fathers borrowed liberally from the best parts of English Common Law, it would be appropriate for them to consult Blackstone’s Commentaries in order to gauge “original intent”.
If you don’t know, Blackstone (1723-1780) was THE leading jurist of his time in England.
U.S. courts frequently quote Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England as the definitive pre-Revolutionary War source of common law; in particular, the United States Supreme Court quotes from Blackstone’s work whenever they wish to engage in historical discussion that goes back that far, or further (for example, when discussing the intent of the Framers of the Constitution). His work has been used most forcefully as of late by Justice Clarence Thomas. U.S. and other common law courts mention with strong approval Blackstone’s formulation also known as Blackstone’s ratio popularly stated as “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” — although he did not first express the principle.
For example:
BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: BOOK 1, CHAPTER 1
“... Rights are however liable to another subdivision; being either, first, those which concern, and are annexed to the persons of men, and are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons; or they are, secondly, such as a man may acquire over external objects, or things unconnected with his person, which are styled jura rerum or the rights of things ... The rights of persons considered in their natural capacities are also of two sorts, absolute, and relative. Absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons: relative, which are indigent to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other ... By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy whether out of society or in it ...
I. The right of personal security consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation ...”
SOUND FAMILIAR? IT OUGHT TO - THE FOUNDING FATHERS RIPPED BLACKSTONE OFF WHEN THEY WROTE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE!!!
Declaration of Independence:
” ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...”
As for “Natural Born”:
BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: BOOK 1, CHAPTER 10
“... When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.
Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium [a restoration of rights upon return to one’s country]) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. St. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it has been so adjudged in behalf of merchants.
But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien ...”.
The LAST paragraph shows how CLOSELY we mirror English Common Law by granting children of aliens “natural born” status.
On the 14th Amendment:
You obviously DO NOT know your Constitution - the 14th Amendment did NOT JUST naturalize the former slaves.
Otherwise, the 14th Amendment would PROBABLY have read as follows:
“All former slaves born PRIOR to the enactment of this Amendment are now naturalized citizens of the United States ...”.
Under YOUR understanding of the Constitution, it WOULD NOT have included children of naturalized slaves BORN AFTER the enactment of the Amendment, because it WOULD NOT have included the wording.
But, they wisely wrote the Amendment this way:
“1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The EXIGENCE for the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was that many people had previously held the belief that NO ONE could be a citizen of the United States unless he was a citizen of an individual State.
REMEMBER the 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Many people held that it was the right of an individual State to determine citizenship, as that power was NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR was it prohibited by it to the States.
As ALL former slaves had recently been made free and were not (in many States) admitted to State citizenship, the ONLY way to establish their right of citizenship in the United States was to amend the Constitution.
AND since there had PREVIOUSLY been no delegation of power in the Constitution to the United States concerning citizenship, the 14th Amendment provided the following:
1. It naturalized former slaves born prior to the enactment of the Amendment.
2. It defined exactly who is a citizen of the United States.
IT DID NOT, however, define what “natural born” meant. It ALSO DID NOT define whether or NOT there were exceptions, such as in McCain’s case.
That is why SCOTUS NEEDS to take the case under “original jurisdiction” and define what “natural born” means. And, BTW, SCOTUS would have to determine this on the basis of “original intent”.
FYI: My comments on the 14th Amendment are not my own. They are the opinions of Owen J. Roberts, Associate Justice SCOTUS (1930-1945) and William O. Douglas, Associate Justice SCOTUS (1939-1975).
I personally don’t care if you remain silent or speak out often. The term ‘n00bie’ is the friendly designation. If someone calls you ‘n00b’, now that is the not so freindly designation.
As far as the trolls go, I think the best thing to do is ignore them. It makes them go away faster! :)
“John McCain is the son of a Commissioned Officer in the United States Navy who was serving overseas. He doesn’t need to be covered by any sort of legislation pertaining to the Panama Canal Zone, His Father was granted a Commission by the United States Government and given a command to be there and as such he would have been natural born even if his father was assigned to Antarctica and brought his wife there on Government orders.
Since the very first day of our Navy, wives have followed their husbands overseas with predictable results, sometimes even on our own warships during the days of sail, like the children of ambassadors, the children of legally wedded servicemen serving overseas are considered natural born citizens as long as this country has had a navy.
“
I agree wholeheartedly, but some posters DON’T or WON’T do the research in order to support their half-baked claims.
There is one poster who claims that “natural born” means natural born - not foreign born and WON’T do the research.
I guess he (or she) thinks “that depends on what your definition of is is ...” as a former POTUS famously claimed.
See my Post #347 for my reasoning that I agree with you.
BTW: I am 3rd generation military and lived overseas as a child. I have cousins born overseas on military bases who are “natural born” citizens. My Dad was USNA Class of ‘46 (graduated in ‘45) and Grandpa was USNA Class of ‘23.
To them, I was the black sheep - a zoomie (Air Force) ... and worse, ENLISTED!!!
Like I have said before, I will be ready to accept the fact of Obama as President ONLY after we all know the truth. If he is constitutionally qualified to take office, then so be it and we look to 2012.
Thank you for your service to our country! God Bless you, your Dad and your Grampa!
Well- GOT ME!
UPDATED 7:28 PM: True to his form , but not to his word, US Supreme Court, Stay Clerk, Danny Bickell, has not updated the Docket to reflect that my case has come directly from a New Jersey Supreme Court order denying emergency relief. Mr. Bickell informed me that he has kept all reference to the NJ Supreme Court order off the Docket for the same reason he initially did not feed the Emergency Stay Application to Justice Souter back on Nov. 3rd, a semantical falsehood concocted by Mr. Bickell and/or his superiors.
My "Motion For Emergency Injunctive Relief" before the NJ Supreme Court was brought under Rule 2:9-8, which states:
2:9-8. Temporary Relief in Emergent Matters
"When necessary, temporary relief, stays, and emergency orders may be granted, with or without notice, by a single Justice of the Supreme Court..."
A stay is a form of injunctive relief which by its nature pertains to emergent matters. When I appealed to the US Supreme Court, I did so by making an "Application for Emergency Stay". Mr. Bickell now claims a specious semantical falsehood to deny me review in the US Supreme Court. This time he alleges that the chain of succession from the NJ Supreme Court to the US Supreme Court was broken by my applying for a "Stay" instead of "injunctive relief" when he knows damn well that a stay is injunctive relief. And the Rule cited by NJ Supreme Court Justice Virginia A. Long in her final denial order specifically refers to "stays and emergency orders":
This matter having come before the court on an application for emergent relief pursuant to RULE 2:9-8, and the undersigned having reviewed the movant's papers and the papers filed by the defendant in the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it is hereby Ordered that the application for emergent relief is denied." (Emphasis added.)
If Bickell doesn't show on the Docket that the case came from the NJ Supreme Court, it will appear, on the Docket, that I did not exhaust all of my lower court options while I most certainly did. I had to go through a preliminary interview with a NJ Supreme Court staff attorney who recognized the emergency as the election was pending. The staff attorney requested 9 copies of my motion, and 9 copies of my 75 page appendix which cost me $172 to make.
I submitted all of that on Friday October, 31 at 12:27 PM. I have the time-stamp on my Motion. An hour later, I spoke with the staff attorney and was told that multiple Justices were going over the case together. Finally, the NJ Supreme Court denied my request for Emergency Relief, but in so doing, they opened the door to expedited review of the United States Supreme Court when Justice Long, in her order, made specific reference to the NJ Supreme Court having "relied" on "movant's papers" while such papers raised the Constitutional "natural born citizen" issue of first impression.
I did this by the book, the Supreme Court Rule book, but now Mr. Bickell and his keepers are trying to rewrite that book for their own purposes.
Mr. Bickell's motives are now so important that he must be put under oath and questioned about his bizarre, unorthodox, and most likely criminal attempts to keep my case out of the eyes and minds of certain Justices of the US Supreme Court. Indeed, if Mr. Bickell's nefarious clerical sabotage has been concocted to influence the occupancy of The White House than Mr. Bickell may eventually be charged with a felony, if not Treason.
I am outraged and disgusted by Bickell's cavalier piracy of my rights, of your rights, of our rights. And my passion for the law has never been greater than it is right now. I believe in law and order and that all stands must be made under the color of law.
It is time to make a stand for the law. For what is now being done to the law in the holiest legal stronghold this world had ever seen, The United States Supreme Court, is nothing short of a blatant attempt to strangle the last breath from our dying Constitutional system of Government created by the people and for the people. There is a force operating here with the intention of squeezing "we the people" out of the way. And that force is dead set against a single citizen setting a virtuous example for the entire nation to witness. Such audacity will apparently not be tolerated.
USA, your law is under attack tonight. Your entire system of Government is under attack with this case. My case is on sold legal ground and it belongs before the US Supreme Court based upon established State law precedent. No exception to standing need be crafted and there are no other procedural hang ups now standing in its way.
I have followed the law to get this case before the highest court in the land and the only thing stopping full review now is interference from a lowly clerk who is sticking it right in your face America. He's basically telling all who are watching this sick play unfold that he holds the keys to the building and he will decide your rights, or lack thereof under the Document.
Time to make a stand, people. And it's a fairly easy one to make. All we need to do is make enough noise so that Justice Thomas and the rest of the court knows that I am coming to the US Supreme Court with my proper papers.
Please don't ask me for instructions on how you do this. I cannot give such advice. All I can do is make my case public, show the documents, quote the law and keep you informed. Any noise you make must be of your own volition and of your own free will.
THERE IS NO NEED TO BREAK ANY LAW. PEACEFUL MEANS ARE THE ONLY MEANS BY WHICH THE LAW CAN BE UPHELD. BE HEARD BUT DONT GET IN TROUBLE. DONT BREAK THE LAW. ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT WE CAN'T KNOW WHO IS UNDER PRESSURE AND WHO IS APPLYING PRESSURE SO BE COOL BUT BE FIRM. TELL THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SET US FREE.
Warm Regards,
Leo C. Donofrio
********************
Why is it that Mr. Bickell smells like a democrat? And this scum works for a liberal judge ... how shcoking! /sarc
ping to an update
If you’re pinging people to updates on this topic, could you add little ole me to the list? Thanks -
Thanks for the update, MHGinTn.
Ping.
The coverup rages on.
Could this clerical sabotage be interpreted as an usurpation of the separation of powers?
Could you add me to your little ping list too?
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.