. . . . Check out # 61 , and # 68. Article, too.
Thanks, Seizethecarp.
Posted on 03/11/2012 9:23:03 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
In support of the opinion in US v Marguet-Pillado, 9th Cir. 2011, Judge Gwin, writing for the majority in his “III Analysis” dicta, states: “No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was ‘an accurate statement of the law,’ in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.” On March 1, Sheriff Arpaio’s Posse re-opened the possibility that Obama was born in Kenya by announcing that it had found probable cause to believe that Obama’s long form birth certificate was forged, newspaper birth announcements were unreliable, and that there was now no proof that Obama was born in the USA. A week earlier, with full knowledge of what the Arpaio Posse’s findings would be, “constitutional scholar” Obama’s legal team suddenly started citing the Marguet-Pillado case in multiple PA and GA ballot eligibility state appeals. The following language is included by Obama’s lawyers in the PA and GA MTD filings: “President Obama was a United States citizen from the moment of his birth inHawaii. Since he held citizenship from birth, all Constitutional qualifications have beenmet. Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. App., 2009); see,United States v. Marguet-Pillado , 648 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9thCir., 2011). There is no basis to question the President’s citizenship or qualifications to hold office.” www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/08/.../10-50041.pdf
Note how careful Joe “Sgt. Friday” Arpaio is being with his fraud and forgery charges. “Just the facts, Ma'am.”
As a first much safer step, Arpaio is NOT going after Barry directly, but only after the person or persons who physically manipulated the images to create the forged BC (the forgery) and then “release” it to the AZ public while claimig it was genuine (the fraud).
Apaio can take down others who aided Barry and I believe that the courts will be less hesitant to go after them (do their duty).
Nixon didn't do the Watergate burglary himself, but it was the cover-up that got him. I might (hopefully) turn out that way with Barry. Barry wasn't there and I am sure he has layers of “arguable” claims that he had no idea that his HI BC was forged. He had no idea that the BC he referred to in “Dreams” that he found in his mother's papers was actually a Kenyan BC! He only just glanced at it! Yeah, that's it.
There are two issues you raise together. One is the crimes of forgery and fraud for which he could be impeached. The other related issue is whether he is constitutionally eligible, once his actual birth location and parents are identified.
There is a theory that if Obama was never qualified to be president, then he actually could not be impeached because that is reserved for actual presidents, not usurper occupants in the WH.
We do not know whether the actual birth location and identity of Barry's parents will prove to be qualifying or disqualifying according to SCOTUS when they hear it if they hear it so we don't know whether he is qualified to be impeached or removed.
If Barry is personally implicated in directing the forgery and fraud I would think that even the Democrats would go down to the WH and tell Barry that the game was up.
“This woman is still today required to file as an alien resident. Your premise does not appear to jive with the facts nor does it appear to hold water.”
My premise? What do you think my premise is?
My premise is that the Marguet-Pillado dicta claimed by Obama to make him NBC is bogus. You don’t disagree with that, do you?
My research of the Miller case shows that the INS discriminates against the children of US citizen fathers born to foreign mothers. That is not a premis, it is a fact upheld by SCOTUS. The woman you refer to seems to be one of those people. She does not have a US citizen mother who gave birth in a foreign country...as Obama might well have had. So her case is not on-point with Barry’s or with my premise.
The resident alien woman that you refer to...did her US citizen father appear on her BC in Mexico? Was she able to prove her blood relationship to him before she turned 18? Did the US citizen father publicly acknowledge her before she turned age 18?
But if she was single, she actually was old enough because the residency for a single mom is less than five years...short enough for SADO to qualify at age 18. The details are at the top of the thread in my article.
The INS deported BHO Sr. on suspicion of being a bigamist due to his prior Kenyan marriage known to the INS. That would make SADO legally single and able to pass citizen ship to Barry if he was born in Kenya. I don't believe that would make him NBC as implies by Marguet-Pillado, of course...just a citizen.
yesyesyes to your last 3 questions.
But she refuses to give up her Mexican citizenship but wants to stay in USA as resident alien.
In California the statute of limitations was 21 years of age for her, not 18, when dealing with the US govt as a minor. So when she turned 21 she could have not sued for her US citizenship by her father`s citizenship but she could have sued for the citizenship before she was 21.
So the law is really screwed up. Her siblings were born in Los Angeles by the same Mexican mother and they are full US citizens. Ha.
So when Barry Soetoro renounced his US citizenship and became an Indonesian in order to attend the Madrassa, does this affect his citizenship according to your logic?
I know nothing of Obummer`s background.
re-ping my vanity for the ping list?
“Bottom line is that the Obama legal team is now claiming that Marguet-Pillado applies to Obama and that case would make the out-of-wedlock Kenya-born child of an eighteen-year-old US citizen mother a “natural born citizen” according to the two-judge 9th Circuit majority and eligible to be president of the United States according to the Obama legal team. This is a blatant attempt to overturn the unanimous holding in Minor v. Happerset defining natural born citizen to exclude those who were not born in the country to citizen parents...”
. . . . Check out # 61 , and # 68. Article, too.
Thanks, Seizethecarp.
yowza ping
There is a difference between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. In some cases, the citizenship of a citizen at birth can be taken away, as in the case of a person born abroad to one US citizen and one foreign citizen. There is precedent for doing so, although I can’t recall the case name off the top of my head. It envolved a man who was born in Italy, and never lived in the US as required under the statute. He was a citizen at birth, but since he failed to complete the required actions when coming of age, his citizenship was forfeit. This indicates that despite the bleating of some, there is a difference between types of citizens at birth. Some are statutory citizens, like the case indicated, some are 14th amendment citizens, like the “anchor babies” are alleged to be, and some are natural born citizens, born in the country of two citizen parents.
i dont think a jury instruction not challenged on one point but another that carried the day is much of a precedent. Also this is the 9th circus...
His father was born in Mexico, but his parents, Mitt's paternal grandparents, were both US citizens. Thus his father was born a citizen, assuming he took the proper follow up actions required at that time. Mitt was born in the US, of parents who were citizens, even though his father was not a natural born citizen. Thus Mitt is a natural born citizen.
It can be argued, with reference to the definitions of "Vattel" in "The Law of Nature", that McCain was born when his father was serving the country, even though out of it and so was considered "born in the country", even if he was born in Pananma, which has not been proven to my satisfaction. I didn't vote for him the primary, but the facts are what they are on the issue.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
If you are going to use Vattel's definition for NBC, you really ought to use the special case qualifications too.
His father was born in Mexico, but his parents, Mitt's paternal grandparents, were both US citizens. Thus his father was born a citizen, assuming he took the proper follow up actions required at that time. Mitt was born in the US, of parents who were citizens, even though his father was not a natural born citizen. Thus Mitt is a natural born citizen.
It can be argued, with reference to the definitions of "Vattel" in "The Law of Nature", that McCain was born when his father was serving the country, even though out of it and so was considered "born in the country", even if he was born in Pananma, which has not been proven to my satisfaction. I didn't vote for him the primary, but the facts are what they are on the issue.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
If you are going to use Vattel's definition for NBC, you really ought to use the special case qualifications too.
In part because she did not renounce her Mexican citizenship. That's part of the requirement for those born of US citizen fathers and foreign citizen mothers. Plus there are proof of paternity documents to be filed. After all, who one's mother is is obvious at the time of birth, not so with the father.
Thanks for the ping.
The carefully-crafted story is beginning to unravel.
Yes, all of them..They need to be put on trial for treason, just for starters..
Doesn’t anyone else here see this is a Red Herring?
He was born in Kenya and became an Indonesian citizen via adoption by Lolo Soetoro when barely past being a toddler. His adoption BC said “Born in Hawaii, father Lolo Soetoro, (Indonesian citizen).
This would automatically have given Barry Soetoro Indonesian citizenship according to laws in effect at that time, both U.S. and Indonesian.
The correct question should be: when did he, or did he ever, naturalize. For to get back his U.S. citizenship, he would have had to naturalize. This means INS has an immigration file labeled “Barry Soetoro”.
By making this issue about birth location we ignore that he is another nation’s citizen.
And before the chorus starts up “where’s your source”, literally millions of emigrants have gone through this process. There is nothing secret about it, except this guy perhaps blackmailed his way into the echelons of Washington, D.C., power.
The other 40%, in fear off their personal safety, would immediately scramble to remove their Obama-Biden bumper stickers.
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.