Judge Land Fines Orly Taitz $20K, File Copy of Order with State Bar of CA

And that notorious commie, Ann Coulter. Don't forget her.

I'm sure you can come up with the quote where Coulter said birther's weren't patriotic. She said they were "a few cranks", but not unpatriotic. She also said that if the media had done it's job and not covered up so much about The One, there would not be such a large number of such "cranks".

I just looked at a clip of Coulter's statement and it is interesting that no one mentioned the real requirement, natural born citizenship, instead accussing the birhters of alleging he is not a citizen, or a "regular citizen". Whorealdo came close when he said, incorrectly, that the Constitution required the President be "born in the Unitied States". If that's what they'd meant, why use a more obscure "term of art" like "natural born citizen"? It would have read just as smoothly, and the excemption for "citizens at the time of the adoption" of the Constitution would have made just as much sense.

Something is being hidden, and it's hard to imagine what it is, if it's not ineligibility. The only thing that could cause embarrassment, is the very thing that would make him elibile. Bastardry, or a father other than BHO Sr. (unless that father too was not a citizen at the time)

from an article that wants people like gov arnold to become president.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041008.html

The History Of The “Natural Born” Clause: Jay Convinces Washington

No one knows exactly what the nation’s Founders had in mind when they wrote that “No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” (Emphasis added.)

However, the “natural born” Clause’s origins have been traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The hint clearly made sense to General Washington. While there was no debate, this presidential qualification was soon introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without any discussion by the Constitutional Convention.

Article II has a number of absolute qualifications: It also requires that presidents be at least thirty-five years of age and a United States resident for fourteen years. Accordingly, the natural born citizenship requirement has been treated as a similar absolute. And this requirement has remained the law of the land, notwithstanding the fact that the Founders’ fear of undue foreign influence soon proved itself baseless.

Yes, it’s unlikely that the SCOTUS will ever hear any eligibility case on the merits. Well, it’s more than simply unlikely to be totally honest. It’s darn near impossible.

I understand your opinion of Donofrio. I happen to disagree with you on that particular subject, but then reasonable people can disagree.

same article, wants foreigners to be able to be president

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20041008.html

In fact, there are conflicting holdings that only further compound the problem of understanding this clause. United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) indicates that foreign born children of Americans are not natural born. But in contrast, Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927) holds that “at common law the children of our citizen born abroad were always natural born citizen from the standpoint of this government.”

It is the consensus of scholars, however, that foreign born children of Americans are natural born citizens. And that would mean that Romney and McCain would certainly qualify.

There is also general agreement that no foreign-born person who becomes a “naturalized” citizen can become president under Article II, unless it is amended. This consensus means that Schwarzenegger and Granholm are out.

When it comes to “naturalized” citizens, the only continuing debate is whether such a person can serve as “acting president” under the presidential succession statute.

If Donofrio raised the issue in his first court filings, I don't see it. Donofrio posted his documents online, and while they're not completely organized (and occasionally in reverse order), I don't see any mention of a 'two-citizen-parent' theory in his New Jersey filings.

The argument does show up in Leo's November Application for Emergency Stay to the U.S. Supreme Court, but only in the most passing way. He devotes a couple of pages to arguing why John McCain is not a NBC, and then has only this to say about Obama:

"That being said, petitioner regretfully submits that since candidate Obama was born to a Kenyan father, he also is not eligible to the office of President since is not a "natural born citizen" by the Constitution."

That's it. No explanation, no sources, no argument. Just a declarative sentence. And a sentence, rather amusingly, coming immediately after Leo's statement that if Obama only released his birth certificate he could "put this issue behind him forever."

meet humblegunner:

Humble may not, or may, be a birther. He just doesn't like Orly. I'll admit she grates on me too, and could be more proffessional, but I can forgive that, if she wins, just once.

Humble likes to make fun, goofy even, vidoes. So FReeping what?

But you know virtually everyone in those videos, except some of the muscians, are FReepers. ( Many are friends of Texas Cowboy, Korean War marine veteran. I'm among them, since I'm on at least one of his videos, and I've met TC, only once, but that's all it took.

We may disagree on Orly, at least in part, but that doesn't mean we will be disagreeable come the Texas Cowboy Memorial Shoot, next weekend.

I appreciate your intellectual honesty. You probably shouldn’t defend me though - it’ll get you in trouble with your group.

That's what this is all about 'honesty'. And Uncle Chip is one, like most of us here, who are searching, demanding honesty. He's being who he is! How could anyone get in trouble for that? Other than - Joe Wilson, Joe the Plumber, Joe the Arizona Sheriff, Orly, Sarah, Rush, Glenn, etc.

I won’t argue your point that Donofrio’s opinions have evolved over time. I think that’s a natural progression as one discovers more evidence to support one’s allegation. If Donofrio made that statement about the BC, he has completely reversed his opinion on that subject, and rightly so.

Humble likes to make fun, goofy even, vidoes

I should be hung or drawn.

Maybe even broken on the wheel.

You questioned if Palin could have been born in Canada without a shred of evidence. Then you go on to Nader being possibly being a duel citizen that no one has challenge him on. These two points and topic sliding and a straw man argument - completely irrelevant.Go start up a website to challenge Nader and I'll support you in that endeavor if you got the facts that he is and cannot be president.

The question here is if Obama is a Natural Born Citizen with having the same intent as our founding fathers. The preponderance of evidence I gave you up thread ways heavily against Obama. You can poo poo it all you want, but the mere fact that Obama had a British/Kenyan citizenship at birth makes Obama not eligible to be president.

then it rather strongly suggests that there is not and never has been a parental citizenship requirement to be an American natural born citizen for the purpose of the Presidency. The 'two citizen parent'/'no dual citizenship at birth' definitions (which aren't synonymous, even though people tend to talk like they are) were practically created in summer 2008 to advance the theory that Obama was ineligible.

It's NOT a theory that being born to two US citizens and being born inside the United States makes the person a Natural Born Citizen. There is no question about this fact. See MINOR v. HAPPERSETT

If Obama thought he had a case, which he and you know and others he does not, would leave the pre-trial BS wrangling and let these cases go to trial on the merits.

You'll find out fast enough about original US Constitutional intent about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, which would leave you and Obama in utter defeat. As in NO duels citizens being NBC, and probably find that Obama was born somewhere else other than inside the United States. We are waiting for you to make your argument in court not pre-trail BS. Bock bock bock.

IMHO, Leo Donofrio is just as nutty as Orly

Have you read Leo's epic, ONELOVESTORY?

I am not Lee D'onofrio or Burnweed.
Those are names of the body I have used as a spacesuit to appear here before you on planet Earth.
My real name is The Paraclete. And Reni IS The Messiah. The Paraclete aka The Spirit of Truth, aka The Holy Spirit is the third person of Trinity. As Jesus stated in the Gospel of John, he has sent me to condemn Satan and glorify the Messiah.

Here's what we've been asked to believe.

1. The constitution has age and birth requirements, but no one has the authority to require a birth certificate, because the founders forgot to write ministerial procedures into the constitution. However, many things the commander-in-chief does to provide for the national defense are not written there, but that's ok with the OB shills.

2. Secretaries of state who checked birth certificates of presidential candidates in the past and excluded them from the ballot because they were too young, do not have the authority to continue to do so. An inconvenient fact for the OB fan club.

3. Take the word of government officials and a forged document on the internet instead of continuing to ask for public review.

4. We are not to expect the most powerful person in the world to reveal critical facts about his life which may indicate lack of qualifications.

5. The natural born issue should not be heard in court, because we have so many interpretations OB must be one. And that the founders intended the son of a British subject to be president.

6. That we can trust Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean to certify someone as natural born and tell us if they are not.

7. We are to believe that voters don't have the right to an honest election and that we have no standing in court if that right may have been violated.

8. We are to believe that those who seek the truth are fanatics and those who block it are intellectual patriots.

Your group disowned me, not too long ago, for being honest about agreeing with N-S on the issue of standing and for thoroughly detesting Orly Taitz and her freak show.

There’s precious little intellectual honesty in the birther community. There are a few honest ones, but most of them prefer to launch personal attacks simply because one doesn’t agree with them 100%. There is no intellectual honesty in baseless personal attacks.

Leo's "two U.S. citizen parents" definition was invented specifically to be a definition that Obama couldn't possibly meet.

Oh Please -- get over yourself, Axelwrong.

The two U.S. citizen definition has been with us since the Immigration Act of 1790, and was cited as such in the Senate resolution SR511 of 2008.

The drafters of the Constitution who were also members of the 1st Congress thought, given the 1790 statute, that Congress had the power to set the parameters of Natural Born. Native born would be the floor. Naturalized at birth via statute would be the ceiling.

"I’m not sure how you can say those records have nothing to do with her defense. The judge specifically alleges that she brought this with knowledge it had no merit. That is a fact-rich posit and cannot reasonably be undone without reference to the underlying documentary evidence. There might be a toe-hold here. Might. Just sayin ...
BTW, full disclosure. I am a lawyer (not CA) and I am a birther agnostic. That is, I do see problems with Obama’s strenuous effort to inhibit discovery that McCain complied within less than 24 hours when posed with a similar challenge. But unlike birther “Kenyanists,” I make no claim to know. I can only see the public surface of this problem. I do not have access to the undisclosed facts (um, by definition). So I remain suspicious but agnostic.
However, the antibirthers should give birthers a tad more respect. The fact that a Hawaiian custodian of birth documents has made assertions of their own belief is meaningless. By contrast, the fact that under some interpretive scenarios Obama’s foreign parentage or other factors may cause him to fall short of in meeting the constitutional requirement of natural born citizenship is not to be taken lightly, especially when one cannot either access the facts that could restrict the possible scenarios or access the authority of the SC in determining how to apply the body of precedent law to the current situation.
Judge Land is certainly free to interpret his own version of how things should go under the law, but frankly so is Ms. Taitz. To launch from that to meritlessness however requires enormous confidence in one’s own opinion in an area with almost no guidance in precedent. While there may be courtroom behaviors Ms. Taitz could improve, the judge is obligated to separate his personal reaction to her from the legal issues she presents.
My own reaction to her? I have seen her in interviews. She does not handle stress well. That does not make her a bad attorney. You should see some of the basket cases who were my classmates at law school. They do fine once they find a niche that suits their personality. Ms. Taitz’s problem is not her intense belief that Obama is an illegitimate office holder and that a constitutional means MUST be found to address the novel situation. No, her problem is controlling the powerful, even overwhelming emotion that reasonably accompanies such belief in one who has only recently escaped a totalitarian regime. A good trial attorney may become emotionally invested in a case, but he or she must manage that emotion to precise effect, and Ms. Taitz may ultimately come to that place of greater self-control. Meanwhile, it serves no purpose to attack her personally. You try taking on the President in court sometime and see if you do any better."

Your comments were so well written and reasonable that I am repeating them above so they have a chance to be seen by those who may not have time to read this whole discussion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=401&invol=815

U.S. Supreme Court

Appellee challenges the constitutionality of 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 , and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 . Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, and Schneider v. Rusk, supra, distinguished. Pp. 820-836.

—snip—

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under constitutional challenge here, primarily on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, but also on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, is 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 236, 8 U.S.C. 1401 (b).

Section 301 (a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1401 (a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (7) of 301 (a) includes in that definition a person born abroad “of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301 (b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under 301 (a) (7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years. We quote the statute in the margin. 1 [401 U.S. 815, 817]

The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to bestow citizenship at birth but to take it away upon the person’s failure to comply with a post-age-14 and pre-age-28 residential requirement. It is this deprival of citizenship, once bestowed, that is under attack here.

-snip-

The plaintiff’s father has always been a citizen of Italy and never has acquired United States citizenship. The plaintiff’s mother, however, was born in Philadelphia in 1915 and thus was a native-born United States citizen. She has retained that citizenship. Moreover, she has fulfilled the requirement of 301 (a) (7) for physical presence [401 U.S. 815, 818] in the United States for 10 years, more than five of which were after she attained the age of 14 years. The mother and father were married in Philadelphia on the mother’s 24th birthday, March 14, 1939. Nine days later, on March 23, the newlyweds departed for Italy. They have resided there ever since.

-snip-

The plaintiff was warned in writing by United States authorities of the impact of 301 (b) when he was in this country in January 1963 and again in November of that year when he was in Italy. Sometime after February 11, 1964, he was orally advised by the American Embassy at Rome that he had lost his United States citizenship pursuant to 301 (b). In November 1966 he was so notified in writing by the American Consul in Rome when the plaintiff requested another American passport.

rest is at link...

-—snip-—

1. The very first Congress, at its Second Session, proceeded to implement its power, under the Constitution’s Art. I, 8, cl. 4, to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” by producing the Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103. That statute, among other things, stated, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”

-—snip—

7. The Immigration and Nationality Act, by its 407, 66 Stat. 281, became law in December 1952. Its 301 (b) contains a five years’ continuous residence condition (alleviated, with the 1957 amendment, see n. 1, by an allowance for absences less than 12 months in the aggregate) directed to the period between 14 and 28 years of age.

The statutory pattern, therefore, developed and expanded from (a) one, established in 1790 and enduring through the Revised Statutes and until 1934, where citizenship was specifically denied to the child born abroad of a father who never resided in the United States; to (b), in 1907, a governmental protection condition for the child born of an American citizen father and residing abroad, dependent upon a declaration of intent and the oath of allegiance at majority; to (c), in 1934, a condition, for the child born abroad of one United States citizen parent and one alien parent, of five years’ continuous residence in the United States before age 18 and the oath of allegiance within six months after majority; to (d), in 1940, a condition, for that child, of five years’ residence here, not necessarily continuous, between ages 13 and 21; to (e), in 1952, a condition, [401 U.S. 815, 826] for that child, of five years’ continuous residence here, with allowance, between ages 14 and 28.

are you sure that’s not msnbc’s talking points? LOL

How do you know Leo Donofrio wrote that? It doesn’t even look similar to his style of writing. I’ll have to reserve judgment until there is some proof.

MSNBC=missinbirth certificate