Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in N.J. resulting from charges of ballot access fraud

‘Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

His citizenship was taken by denaturalization, not expatriation. There is a totally different line of cases dealing with expatriation.”

Your entire erroneous analysis includes trying to make fine distinctions that the law does not make.

You are trying to analyze these issues the way the law was in 1410.

The law does not separate out pigeon hole areas of the law as you imagine.

The law does not identify cases as “denaturalization” cases or something else.

You DO have to look at what the QUESTION PRESENTED was.

What the court says along the way means NOTHING, really.

The only thing that counts is the question that the court was answering, and what the answer was.

So if the court is answering the question: How much tax do you owe on selling a business?

And the court comments in the middle of that “Alaska is not really part of the United States” that comment LITERALLY MEANS NOTHING and is TOTALLY IGNORED in the interpretation of the court case.

The ONLY thing that counts is what was the question the court was asked to decide and what was the answer.

Courts do not give “advisory opinions” commenting on other topics, and if they do (they shouldn’t) advisory opinions are IGNORED as IRRELEVANT and have NO legal meaning or authority whatsoever.

In Rogers v. Bellei, you ASSUME because you want to twist the facts to fit your narrative that it has something to do with naturalization.

That is impossible. Was there a swearing in ceremony? NO! Was there a naturalization petition? NO! Did a judge administer the oath of citizenship? NO!

There was no naturalization.

-- the issue isn't his NBC status to begin with. The issue is did he commit administrative fraud by lying on the forms used to get on the ballot in NJ. --

The two issues are joined. If he is NBC, he did not commit fraud, if he is not NBC, he did commit fraud. The NBC question has to be settled, in order to settle the fraud question.

The only thing that this article identifies is

“WHERE IS the Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a citizen of the United States of America? That isn’t something that is made up. It IS a requirement. So WHERE is it?

Just the fact that he did SEAL his records and there appears to be no record of this document SHOULD arouse a GREAT DEAL of SUSPICION in the people that support him, the same as it has in those who do not support him.”

this beautifully shows the utter nonsense of amateur legal beagles, Trump liars, and hacks.

There is absolutely no support for the damnable lie that Ted Cruz sealed any records.

There is nothing to support that Ted Cruz is involved at all in whether a CRBA is seen.

First, one MAY request a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.

BUT IT IS NOT REQUIRED.

There is no requirement that one apply for a CRBA.

But there is also no requirement that the State Department RETAIN copies of a CRBA for 42 years.

So if you had asked for it within 10 years, you might have gotten it.

42 years ago there were no computers, you realize, at least not in common use?

So what makes you think Ted Cruz’s CRBA from 42 years ago still exists?

And where is the support for your damnable lie that Ted Cruz “sealed” any records.

You, sir, are a LIAR. You KNOW you are a liar. You are a damnable liar.

Just because you have not seen a document does not mean that Ted Cruz “sealed” anything.

SHAME, SIR, SHAME.

“If he is NBC, he did not commit fraud, if he is not NBC, he did commit fraud.”

That is not true.

If Ted Cruz believed that he is a natural born citizen — because Congress says so, Congress has been legislating on the question since 1790 — then he did not commit fraud.

So if Ted Cruz were wrong, but he believed he was right, there is no fraud.

“Then Cruz is in trouble since he has stated in the past he was not qualified to run.”

You’re funny.

It is settled law that any law made which nullifies or negates part of the Constitution is void. All your arguments push the negating of the term “Natural born Citizen” making it indistinguishable from the term “Citizen” used in the same sentence and elsewhere in the Constitution.

The Constitution says there is a difference.

4 Supreme Courts have ruled on this issue.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

No matter your argument or mine however, the fact is there is a 100 percent chance the Democrats have at least one liberal Federal Judge who will grant an injunction barring Cruz from the Ballot (if hes the Nominee) late in October. With the 4-4 USSC locked up it makes the Democrat’s walk to the White House unopposed.

You would think King Cruz would want to contribute just to get this question of law settled once and for all, EH?

Heh. In every case where his eligibility is challenged, his first argument is that the issue should NOT be settled by the court.

And lookee HERE!

ANOTHER fundraising page by some attorney named Moseley (no confirmation from our local sleeper troll by that name that it's actually him), the goal is $3000 and so far, they've raised a whopping total of ***$50*** but RUH ROH, funding has *EXPIRED* and only 1% of the goal was met.

Teddy is sadz I'm sure.

http://gogetfunding.com/ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-friend-of-the-court-brief-to-prove-cruz-is-eligible/

You, sir, are a LIAR. You KNOW you are a liar. You are a damnable liar.

In case you missed it earlier, let me semi-spell this out for you, ask Vanna to buy a letter if you still don't get it:

Go f--k yourself.

Q - How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?
A - Does anyone REALLY need the answer to that?

Lawyers are experts in prevarication, lies and deception. Which is probably why you are so hell bent on helping out your fellow lawyer, Lyin' Ted.

Just because you have not seen a document does not mean that Ted Cruz “sealed” anything.
SHAME, SIR, SHAME.

Now that your drama queen sputterings have been properly responded to, let's proceed:

Jonathan, (mind if I call you Jonathan? That IS your first name isn't it?)

How is it that you have been snoozing away for damn near 4 months before suddenly arising from the FR graveyard to rear your ugly head on this thread TODAY?

Your posting history is spotty at best and as I previously mentioned, you haven't had much to say about anything since last year.

How's that crowdfunding effort to prove Saint Teddy is eligible to run for President going?

Oh yeah, you raised $50 out of your $3000 goal.

Maybe chase some ambulances for some extra cash to donate to the cause?

Happy to help.

I'd consider giving you a substantive response if you made a substantive argument, but 1) all you are making are naked assertions, and 2) I think most readers here are capable of reading Bellei for themselves.

3. By Italian law the plaintiff acquired Italian citizenship upon his birth in Italy. He retains that citizenship. He also acquired United States citizenship at his birth under Rev.Stat. S: 1993, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, S: 1, 48 Stat. 797, then in effect. ^2 That version of the statute, as does the present one, contained a residence condition applicable to a child born abroad with one alien parent. ...
The application of these respective statutes to a person in plaintiff Bellei's position produces the following results:
1. Not until 1934 would that person have had any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit. One may observe, too, that if Mr. Bellei had been born in 1933, instead of in 1939, he would have no claim even today. Montana v. Kennedy, supra. ...
1. Over 70 years ago the Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, reviewed and discussed early English statutes relating to rights of inheritance and of citizenship of persons born abroad of parents who were British subjects, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 668—671, 18 S.Ct. 456, 464-465, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898). The Court concluded that 'naturalization by descent' was not a common-law concept but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment. ...
Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was 'declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,' so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688, 18 S.Ct., at 472. Then follows a most significant sentence:
'But it (the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment) has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' ...
Further, it is conceded here both that Congress may withhold citizenship from persons like plaintiff Bellei and may prescribe a period of residence in the United States as a condition precedent without constitutional question. ...
Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do ...

Even the dissents, which would have benefitted greatly from a position that Bellei was not natrualized, did not take that position.

This provision [1790 Act] is the earliest form of the statute under which Bellei acquired his citizenship. Its enactment as part of a 'Rule of Naturalization' shows, I think, that the First Congress conceived of this and most likely all other purely statutory grants of citizenship as forms or varieties of naturalization. However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898):
'The fourteenth amendment of the constitution * * * contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,—birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.' 169 U.S., at 702-703, 18 S.Ct., at 477.

They are the same person. That is apparant from the style of argument, long on assertions, short on citations to authoritity.

“How is it that you have been snoozing away for damn near 4 months before suddenly arising from the FR graveyard to rear your ugly head on this thread TODAY”

Because I noticed that you are lying about a hearing today.

And I am thoroughly disgusted that after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already put a fork in this topic,

you are

STILL

lying about it.

I can understand lying about this in 2015.

I can maybe understand lying about this in January 2016.

But you are STILL lying about it — even after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already rejected your arguments, on the substance (not standing).

You have no shame.

Ah yes, the Seinfeld principle. It isn’t a lie if you believe it.

“It is settled law that any law made which nullifies or negates part of the Constitution is void”

But the Constitution does not define natural born citizen.

That is only in your fantasies.

So a law defining natural born citizen is NOT negating part of the Constitution, because there is nothing in the Constitution to support your opinions.

” All your arguments push the negating of the term “Natural born Citizen” making it indistinguishable from the term “Citizen” used in the same sentence and elsewhere in the Constitution.”

Well, if you cannot read the Constitution or Supreme Court decisions,

why would I expect you to be able to read what I wrote?

There is a clear difference between

1) A naturalized citizen — which requires being sworn in by a judge who administers the oath of citizenship, after taking a citizenship exam, proving that one can speak English, being tested for communicable diseases, having a background check, applying officially

and typically takes 5-10 years

and

2) A natural born citizen, who is anyone who is automatically a citizen at birth without going through the 5-10 year process of naturalization.

A child who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.

Period.

End of discussion.

From that gogetfunding link...

“Ted Cruz is more Ronald Reagan than Ronald Reagan.”

LOLOL!

“It isn’t a lie if you believe it.”

The definition of lie is — and has been for thousands of years — to KNOWINGLY make a false statement.

So you are a left-wing America-hater who supports Trump as a way of tearing down the Republican Party, of course, right?

So every country’s intelligence agency believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, right?

Saddam Hussein’s own generals were intercepted on the radio asking “When are we going to release the WMD’s?”

Even Iraq’s own generals believed Iraq had WMD’s.

But you claim that Bush LIED, right?

Because you even lie about lying.

To state something that you believe to be true is never lying.

But in your case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has already rejected your fictions.

So you now KNOW that you are simply lying from this point on.

“How is it that you have been snoozing away for damn near 4 months before suddenly arising from the FR graveyard to rear your ugly head on this thread TODAY”

Because I noticed that you are lying about a hearing today.

ME?!? MOI'?!? All because of ME!??

Holy jumpin' Jesus!

Jonathan Moseley, YOU, the esteemed George Mason University law graduate, the guy who raised $50 bucks to help out Saint Teddy, were awakened from your FR slumber by lil ol' me?

Why, ah am humbled and flattered, that a bloviating blubber puss like you would be led to direct all of your pent up drama upon a humble FReeper like mahself!

To properly honor you for honoring me, I bestow upon you one of mah graphics for you to ponder on, and tell Ken Cuccinelli ah said 'howdy' (you DO know Ken don't you? or were you just name dropping on that 'gogetfunding.com' website?)

“4 Supreme Courts have ruled on this issue.”

No, they have not. No case has decided that a person born outside of the United States to US citizen parents is not a natural born citizen.

Congress has the authority to make laws of Naturalization, not Citizenship in general. This was done to prevent Congress from enacting law that could arbitrarily revoke one’s citizenship status. You should try reading the Constitution. Any law passed by Congress in regards to citizenship is naturalization. Naturalization is not NBC.

-- The law does not identify cases as "denaturalization" cases or something else. --

Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988)

Juozas Kungys seeks our review of a judgment and opinion of the Third Circuit remanding his case for the completion of denaturalization proceedings.

Such "denaturalization" proceedings only pertain to persons who obtain citizenship by naturalization, and such cases can and do occur when the citizenship in question was conferred at birth.

A completely different line of cases, outside of denaturalization cases, exists for persons who are not naturalized, but go from "citizen" to "not citizen." Just for shorthand, I refer to this set as expatriation cases, although the correct use of language has "denaturalization" as a subset of expatriation.

The number of errors in your contentions would make substantive rebuttal tedious. I rank you in the top ten despicable liars on FR. Congratulations!