HOLLISTER v. SOETORO - JOINT LETTER FILED - advising of additional authorities.

Scribd ^ | 5/25/2010 | John David Hemenway

[rxsid]

A rule 28(j) letter has just been filed in Hollister v. Soetoro citing the actual language of Vattel from his 1756 treatise and David Ramsay’s essay as well as St. George Tucker’s American edition of Blackstone with commentaries on the Constitution in contrast to the common law.

From the letter:

 

Re:Hollister v. Soetoro, No. 09-5080, consolidating No. 09-5161

Dear Sir:

I write pursuant to Rule 28(j) to bring to the attention of the Court supplemental authority which has come to our attention since we filed our briefs in the case, now under reconsideration. This authority is about the issue of the phrase “natural born citizen” in Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, which is central to our contention that if the allegations of the complaint be taken as true a case was made and the said central issue should have been treated, but wasn’t. In prior filings we cited the 19th century case authority pointing to the work of Vattel on the Law of Nations as the origin of the thinking behind that phrase. (pp.5, 35-6)

Now we cite Vattel in his“Le Droit des Gens ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle 1758 (English 1759) from Vol. 1 (of 2) Chpt. XIX, 212, Des citoyens et naturels: “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens.” Unmistakably he says that those are natural born citizens who are born in the country of citizen parents.

David Ramsay, founding father from South Carolina who served in the Continental Congress in 1782-83 and 1785-86, wrote early histories of the founding. In his 1789 essay “A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen” pp. 6-7 describes the “natural born citizen” as one born in the country of citizen parents. He knew all the participants and worked with them in his role as a member of the Congress.

St. George Tucker emigrated from Bermuda before the Revolution, in which he fought extensively. He married the widowed mother of John Randolph of Roanoke, by whom he had two children. He taught law for years at William and Mary. In 1804 he published the leading American version of Blackstone of the time, in which he correlated Blackstone with the Constitution. In the Appendix to Vol. 1, Note D, Sec. 14 he makes clear that the Framers relied upon Vattel’s definition above, not the common law concept concerning “subjects.” He gives examples why.

Sincerely yours,

/s/

John D. Hemenway

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31897641/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-JOINT-LETTER-FILED-Advising-of-Additional-Authorities

[jamese777]

The Ankeny decision is erroneous on its face and is not precedent in any federal court, especially regarding the definition of NBC.

---

“Erroneous” to you but not reversed by the Indiana Supreme Court and not appealed to the US Court of Appeals or the US Supreme Court.
It hasn’t mattered whether any Obama eligibility lawsuit originated in federal courts or state courts, 69 lawsuits have been dismissed, denied or rejected and no plaintiff has prevailed at any level of the judiciary.

Whether the Ankeny decision will be cited in any other decision in state or federal courts remains to be seen. The decision was rendered too recently to be a precedent but you can bet that Obama and Department of Justice defense attorneys will be citing Ankeny in their dismissal briefs.

[Seizethecarp]

“The decision was rendered too recently to be a precedent but you can bet that Obama and Department of Justice defense attorneys will be citing Ankeny in their dismissal briefs.”

The DOJ will never cite Ankeny (only a state court comment in dicta which in note 14 admits that WKA never declared Wong to be NBC) when the DOJ can cite and falsely spin WKA (a SCOTUS case) to say that WKA directly confirmed that Wong was NBC. I believe DOJ has already cited WKA this way but it would nauseate me more than I am already nauseated by Obama’s press conference today to go and confirm it.