Obama birthplace lawyer denied new trial

Orange County Register ^ | 1-13-10 | Martin Wisckol

[STARWISE]

Laguna Niguel attorney Orly Taitz’s effort to have President Barack Obama removed from office because he was born in Kenya - or perhaps Indonesia - has run into another dead end, as U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued this order denying her request to move the case from Santa Ana to Washington, D.C.

In his order, Carter states simply that he dismissed her case on Oct. 29 - meaning that there is no action currently pending, and so no case to transfer. In that dismissal, Carter ruled that the federal courts do not have the constitutional power to remove a sitting president - that only Congress has that authority.

Taitz responded to the Oct. 29 ruling with a number of unorthodox filings. On Nov. 9, she filed a fiery declaration to Carter, which among other things claimed that a Carter law clerk previously worked for a law firm defending Obama, and that that clerk wrote most of Carter’s ruling dismissing Taitz’s suit. She also denied witnesses’ affidavits saying she’d asked them to lie to the court.

The same day as she filed the declaration lashing out at Carter and others, she’d filed a motion asking Carter to reconsider his dismissal of her case.

On Dec. 3, she filed new allegations with Carter’s court.

“There was a concerted and a well orchestrated effort by a number of individuals to assassinate my character, endanger my law license and ultimately derail my case against Mr. Obama,” Taitz wrote. “A number of criminal activities were perpetrated upon this court.”

On Dec. 4, Carter denied her request for reconsideration, saying legal language that he had ruled once and for all - and that meant the case was finished in his court.

This doesn’t have anything directly to do with her court case, but it’s of interest to note that on her blog later in December, she suggested armed rallies and protests might be in order.

The day before Christmas, she asked Carter to send the matter to Washington, D.C. court. But neither Santa nor Carter granted her wish. Carter issued his ruling Tuesday.

[rxsid]

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

 

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

 

 

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate.

[Desron13]

Thank you for your thorough response Lurking Libertarian. I really appreciate your answers to my questions in this matter. However, I still would like to know who has responsibility in this situation to ensure that the Constitution is followed. It seems to me that this is not what is normally dealt with in the courts but still cuts directly to the heart of our rule by law instead of by men. We supposedly have a right to petition the government for redress of grievances but no clear mechanisms appears to be available according to what you have related here.

It really seems unbelievable to me that a man can seek the presidency without providing the information requested by the plaintiffs in these cases. When I joined the Navy and required a high security clearance for my rating they took my life apart. They questioned my grade school teachers and neighbors that I hadn't seen in over ten years. They questioned my High School classmates and old girl friends. How can a man be elected president without far more scrutiny?

[jamese777]

The birthplace of one’s parents is relevant to determining natural born status only if the parents are foreign diplomats. Otherwise numerous courts over three centuries have ruled that a child born to alien parents in the United States is a natural born American citizen.

A recent court case in Indiana, “Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana” tested whether both John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone of American parents) and Barack Obama qualify as natural born citizens under Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Both the original trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that McCain and Obama are natural born citizens. The Appeals Court pointed out in its decision that President Chester A. Arthur’s father was born an Irish citizen, immigrated to Canada and then immigrated to the US and eventually became a naturalized US Citizen.
The plaintiffs in this case attempted to use the foreign born parent argument to disqualify Obama. The Indiana courts rejected their argument.
The 14th amendment to the Constitution is clear: “ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens...” There are then two types of American citizens, born citizens and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can become president, naturalized citizens can’t.

[jamese777]

The state of Hawaii has verified Obama’s birth there. The Governor and the Attorney General of Hawaii are both Republicans who endorsed John McCain. They have no political motive to assist Barack Obama.

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

The courts over three centuries have ruled that natural born and native born are synonymous terms. The latest ruling to affirm that legal position was in the case of “Ankeney v The Governor of Indiana” which was decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals on November 12, 2009. They ruled Obama (and McCain) to be Natural Born Citizens with regard to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

There are two parties with the Constitutional authority to check eligibility: the Electors prying to voting and the Congress after certification.

State secretary of states also have to follow state laws regarding access to the ballot. But they are not constitutionally required to do so.

Please not that while the electors and Congress have the authority, they are not charged with the “responsibility.” Nobody is explicitly.

In all honesty, the writing in the Constitution on this matter could have been a wee bit tighter.

[jamese777]

Which court accepted an image on the internet as a valid “vital record”.

---

To the best of my knowledge those various court proceedings have not used any “internet images.”

Verification has come from both the director of the state of Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino and from the Hawaii State Registrar of Records, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka in public statements that have been entered into the record of court proceedings.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

[Lurking Libertarian]

Clearly, the framers make a distinction between a "Citizen" and a "Natural Born Citizen" as far as eligibility requirements to hold federal government office. All Natural Born Citizens are Citizens, but not all Citizens are "Natural Born" Citizens.

That's right, because the term "citizen" includes naturalized citizens. What you can't show is anything indicating that the Founders thought there was a third category-- not a naturalized citizen but not a natural-born citizen. Under English Common law, the words "natural born" and "naturalized" were antonyms, and that's the usage the Constitution adopted.

[Lurking Libertarian]

However, I still would like to know who has responsibility in this situation to ensure that the Constitution is followed. It seems to me that this is not what is normally dealt with in the courts but still cuts directly to the heart of our rule by law instead of by men. We supposedly have a right to petition the government for redress of grievances but no clear mechanisms appears to be available according to what you have related here.

There are many Constitutional issues that are never decided by the Courts. For example, there was a very serious debate as to the Constitutional legitmacy of the Vietnam War, but the courts repeatedly refused to decide it. Some issues must be decided by the voters and by the Congress. This is one of them.

[plenipotentiary]

No. The term Natural Born Citizen is used only once in the Constitution, in connection with the President. It has no relevence to the rest of the Citizenry. Why did they invent this special term for the Presidential qualification only?

They already had equivalents for “Born in the USA”= Citizen or Native, and “Naturalized”

What was different about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

[rxsid]

"The birthplace of one’s parents is relevant to determining natural born status only if the parents are foreign diplomats."

Barry was born a subject of the British crown. There's nothing in American law or history that would say, with that background, he's considered a Natural Born Citizen for purposes of Article II, section 1, clause 5 eligibility.

So the question remains,

How can a Natural Born Citizen's status be "Governed" by Great Britain?

[Neets]

LOL.

[rxsid]

"That's right, because the term "citizen" includes naturalized citizens

And when did that take place? Within the Constitution? Or, years after?

At the time the Constitution was adopted, as far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned, there were two kinds of citizens. "Citizen" as mentioned in the Constitution, and "Natural Born Citizen" as mentioned in the Constitution. There was no "Naturalized" Citizen of the United States till years later.

[MrRobertPlant2009]

It’s not “governed” by Great Britain. It’s governed by the US. He was born with British citizenship (I think), but that doesn’t mean anything.

Britian could pass a law tomorrow making you a British citizen. Does that make you inelgible for the presidency? Zimbabwe could make every resident of Texas a Zimbabwe citizen tomorrow. That doesn’t mean I’m now subject to their courts.

Our laws are our laws. Their laws are their laws.

[Lurking Libertarian]

There was no "Naturalized" Citizen of the United States till years later.

Nonsense. All of the States were naturalizing citizens during the period betwen 1776 and 1789, which is why the Constitution gave Congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." (Article I, section 8, clause 4).

[rxsid]

"Nonsense. All of the States were naturalizing citizens during the period betwen 1776 and 1789, which is why the Constitution gave Congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." (Article I, section 8, clause 4)."

Nonsense. Your talking about naturalization laws that applied to the states PRIOR to the adoption of the federal Constitution. I clearly was refering to "the United States."

[jamese777]

“That’s right, because the term “citizen” includes naturalized citizens
And when did that take place? Within the Constitution? Or, years after?

At the time the Constitution was adopted, as far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned, there were two kinds of citizens. “Citizen” as mentioned in the Constitution, and “Natural Born Citizen” as mentioned in the Constitution. There was no “Naturalized” Citizen of the United States till years later.

---

Well until two years later. The Constitution was ratified in June of 1788 and the first Naturalization Law was passed in March of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalized US citizenship to aliens who were free white persons of good moral character. Therefore white indentured servants, slaves, American Indians, and free blacks could not become naturalized US citizens.

[rxsid]

It's precisely because "their laws are their laws" that the laws of the United States can not "take away" the citizenship laws of other countries.

Barry was born to a foreign national father. Barry inherited his father's "citizenship." Even assuming Barry was born in HI, he would have been born a dual national. A born citizen of TWO country's. A citizen of the US and a subject of the UK. Therefore, how in the world can a Natural Born Citizen of the United States be "Governed" (as admitted by the vaunted FTS web site) in any way shape or form by a foreign country?

Oh and your scenario of "country x" delaring soverign citizens of another country "their" citizens...is meaningless. It would not be recognized by the international "community", nor an international court and so on. Besides. The country affected by such an action could then, in your scenario, turn around and declare all citizens of country x to be their citizens now. That's all meaningless.

[El Gato]

Verification has come from both the director of the state of Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino and from the Hawaii State Registrar of Records, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka in public statements that have been entered into the record of court proceedings.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

OK, which court accepted non-sworn press releases as evidence?

[jamese777]

Here’s the US State Department’s position on Dual Nationality:
“Dual Nationality
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct. The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship. Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country’s embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.”
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

[jamese777]

OK, which court accepted non-sworn press releases as evidence?

---

I’m not sure. There have been more than 60 court proceedings concerning Obama’s eligibility. Which defendants used Fukino’s or Onaka’s statements in their rejoinders is not something that I have followed. All I know is that 53 of the eligibility cases have been summarily dismissed.
I would imagine that any defendant would get a notarized copy of Fukino’s statement to present to a trial judge. If any of these cases actually end up going to trial, Fukino might have to testify under oath.