Giuliani: What Comey, Brennan Orchestrated ‘As Close To Treason As You Can Get’

Or we could just pay attention to Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section.
In the United States House on March 9, 1866 commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.

Or we could ignore John Bingham who had nothing to do with the drafting of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

John Bingham's draft of the 14th Amendment had NO citizenship clause. It was added as an amendment to the proposed Amendment in the Senate, by Senator Jacob Howard.

The 14th Amendment was adopted as the 1866 Civil Rights Act was strongly suspected of being unconstitutional as beyond the powers of Congress.

The 14th Amendment is the law of the land and the expressed will of the people. It superceded any existing law.

Woodpusher, where is it written in U.S. statutory code that an individual born in a U.S. state to U.S. citizen parents is a U.S. citizen?

For that reason, if the U.S. Supreme Court were ever prevailed upon, in a contested proceeding in which a particular individual’s POTUS eligibility hangs in the balance, to arrive at, determine, formulate or confirm, for the first time squarely and without nit-picking debate in an actual decisive holding rather than in connection some argually peripheral aspect of another type of case, or via what is informally referred by lawyers and judges as “dicta”, a formal definition of the term natural-Born Citizen as set forth lo those many years ago in the U.S. Constitution, I believe it is quite likely to exclude each and every one of said “sketchy” U.S. citizens.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree a fair court that goes by original intent would be forced to find all of those ineligible.
I have no confidence in THIS court.
We need 2 maybe 3 more appointments before we might get the right result.

Remember that this court stood by mute as the Kenyan from Indonesia usurped the office. One of them swore him in, twice, both times. (which is a curiosity in itself)

2/19/2020 sign up

sniff, sniff

Woodpusher, where is it written in U.S. statutory code that an individual born in a U.S. state to U.S. citizen parents is a U.S. citizen?

Did you botch the question? If so take a mulligan.

Do you actually doubt that a child born in a U.S. state to U.S. citizen parents is a U.S. citizen?

That’s his point.

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

That’s his point.

I will wait for him to clarify his point. He may have intended to ask me for the statute that says an individual born in the the United States to non-citizen parents is a U.S. citizen. We had citizens before there was a Constitution. They are the ones who created the Constitution. Lo and behold, before there was a Constitution, citizens created baby citizens.

Your point is an absurdity.

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

You have deliberately and dishonestly quoted grossly out-of-context from Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-168 (1874) without so much as a citation, not that I need one, as you will see. The Court continued where you left off:

For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Why did the Court not have to resolve those doubts?

In the agreed Statement of Facts in Minor v. Happersett, the Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that,

It is admitted by the pleadings that the plaintiff is a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri; that the defendant is a registrar, qualified and acting as such; that the plaintiff, in proper time and in proper form, made application to im to be registered, and that the defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the reason that she is a female, (and that she possesses the qualifications of an elector in all respects, except as to the matter of sex, as before stated.)

U.S. Supreme Court, Transcript of Record, Minor v. Happersett; Agreed Statement, at pp. 7-8, excerpt at page 8. In Minor v. Happersett, citizenship was a stipulated fact, not an issue before the Court to decide. Any doubts were eliminated in Wong Kim Ark.

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

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, “the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people,” and “any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.” Rev. Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and “that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.”
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed.

See also, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328-329 (1939)

First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case—that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States—the Court adverted to the "inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 668.

Seriously, would you mind considering and answering the original question?

“Chester A. Arthur was born in Vermont on October 5, 1829 to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland (who later became a U.S. citizen, 14 years after Chester A. Arthur was born). His mother, Malvina Stone Arthur, was a native of Berkshire, Vermont, who moved with her family to Quebec, where she met and married the future president’s father, William Arthur, on April 12, 1821”

Woodpusher: By any chance do you know when, by whom, and under what circumstances the specific information about William Arthur not being a citizen at the moment of his son Chester’s birth was discovered and published? Who, pray tell, was the first to realize the significance of this information after it was made public? What important points did he make about the whole situation? When did he make those points? Why did he make them?

[one guy in new jersey #108] Seriously, would you mind considering and answering the original question?

Not at all. I thought it had to be a mistake.

[one guy in new jersey #108] Woodpusher, where is it written in U.S. statutory code that an individual born in a U.S. state to U.S. citizen parents is a U.S. citizen?

66 STAT 163
PUBLIC LAW 414
JUNE 27, 1952
CHAPTER 477
AN ACT
To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality;and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act, divided into titles, chapters, and sections according to the following table of contents, may be cited as the "Immigration and Nationality Act".
. . .
At 66 stat. 235-236:
TITLE III-NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
CHAPTER 1—NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION
NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(2) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(3) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one f its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(4) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(5) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its time prior to the birth of such person;
(6) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.
(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (II) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended.

Woodpusher: By any chance do you know when, by whom, and under what circumstances the specific information about William Arthur not being a citizen at the moment of his son Chester’s birth was discovered and published? Who, pray tell, was the first to realize the significance of this information after it was made public? What important points did he make about the whole situation? When did he make those points? Why did he make them?

I don't think it was a secret and was in three public records that I know of. Chester Arthur became President in 1881.

William Arthur (or MacArthur) was from County Antrim in what is now Northern Ireland. He and his wife were married in Canada. He was naturalized on August 31, 1843. He is on the 1850 and 1860 census listed as birthplace Ireland.

His naturalization certificate may be viewed here.

Obama's eligibility was challenged in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewica, citing the parentage of Chester Arthur. A requested stay was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 15, 2008. Nobody that matters has ever attached any significance to the information that natural born citizen Chester Arthur had a British father.

555 U.S. 1083

December 15, 2008 . . .
Miscellaneous Orders
No. 08A469. Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, Secretary of State of Connecticut. Sup. Ct. Conn. Application for stay and/or injunction, addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court, denied.

HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH - PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH

Posted in Uncategorized on December 6, 2008by naturalborncitizen

December 6, 2008 6:36 PM

[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of “Chester Allan Arthur”, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]

I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.

Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.

We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.

How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.

Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Irelandor Canada as a British subject. It was bunk.. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.

That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.

We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.

Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification. He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated. It was ratified in 1867. In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee. He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.

He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President.

CHESTER’S LIES

The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. He burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped in Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina, in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.

By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

Arthur’s mother had lived in Canada with her husband and even had her first child there.

In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’saccusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 - when his first child was born in Dunham,Canada - and March 1824 - when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.

On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.

In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman .

It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim - that Arthur was born abroad - while the more subtle and true eligibility issue stayed hidden in plain site.

FATEFUL FACTS

I contacted Greg Dehler a few days ago after finding a reference in his Chester Arthur biography which said William Arthur became a citizen in 1843. I wrote to Greg and asked him about the reference. As fate would have it, Mr. Dehler, after checking his notes, wrote back to me to say that he got it from Thomas Reeves’ book, “Gentleman Boss”.

I went to the library the next day and devoured the Reeves book. But the reference to William’s naturalization was not there. Greg also knew I was interested in the Hinman scandal and pointed me to the Brooklyn Eagle search enginefrom the Brooklyn public library.

I began poking around and discovered a few of the lies mentioned above.

Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history. I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story. My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited.

About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler. I’ll let you read it:

Leo,

Needless to say I was more than a little embarrassed that you could not locate the reference in Reeves. I thought that was odd because my note concerning William Arthur was with the Reeves notes. I conducted a more thorough search and found the source. It was in the Chester A. Arthur Papers (what is left of them at least) at the LOC. I own the microfilm reels and made a copy for you which is attached. The Washington County Clerk in NYS dates it August 31, 1843. How does this affect Chet?

Greg

I almost fell off my chair when I downloaded the William Arthur naturalization PDF and was staring at the shifting sands of history.

Chester Arthur had something to hide.

He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.

Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.

When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.

Is this the twilight zone?

William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.

Chester Arthur lied about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later,Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.

And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.

Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information. It’s another lie. I just don’t know what it means.

Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.

And it’s no precedent to follow.

Woodpusher, please try again.

Consider the question more carefully please.

Where is it written in U.S. statutory code that an individual born in a U.S. state to U.S. citizen parents is a U.S. citizen?

Woodpusher, please try again.
Consider the question more carefully please.
Where is it written in U.S. statutory code that an individual born in a U.S. state to U.S. citizen parents is a U.S. citizen?

Consider taking a reading comprehension class.

NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Is an individual born in a U.S. state a person?

For added context, read the 14th Amendment:

ALL PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...."

ALL PERSONS BORN includes persons born of citizens, aliens, and evenof two illegal aliens in a detention center awaiting deportation. It also includes a newborn of unknown parentage found abandoned.

birther blather

https://thefogbow.com/birther-movement/cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/

Leo Donofrio is the most colorful of all the characters in the birther saga. Before becoming the guiding light of the birthers, he led a rock band. He has gone by the nicknames “Burnweed,” “Jet Wintzer,” “Jet Schizo,” and “The Paraclete” (the Holy Spirit in Christian theology).
He is the lawyer who first created the fake imaginary “two citizen parents” rule that has been thoroughly disproven and explicitly rejected by the courts, especially the court in Ankeny v. Daniels. Leo is also the father of the Fake Grand Jury movement, though he disavowed them when the first fake grand jury threatened to take physical action to enforce its “indictment”.

Ankeny v. Indiana, Ind. Ct. App (12 Nov 2009)

The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs‟ complaint.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a citizen of the United States. It provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend XIV, § 1. Article II has a special requirement to assume the Presidency: that the person be a “natural born Citizen.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 4. The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874).
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.
Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459.
. . .
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs‟ case. 16 See generally McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., 860 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the plaintiffs‟ arguments had been sufficiently addressed by Indiana Supreme Court precedent and therefore the trial court did not err when it granted the defendant‟s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); see also, e.g., Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were “natural-born citizens of the United States”), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‟s grant of the Governor‟s motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/truce/ [dead link]

excerpt

I am now going to step away from the POTUS eligibility issue and move on with my life.
My name is Leo Charles Donofrio. I was born in Queens, NYC. My parents were both born in New York as well. My father’s father became a naturalized US citizen after my father was born. Like Obama and Chester Arthur, my father could not be President. He isn’t a natural born citizen, but I am.
On Nov. 3, 2008, I went to SCOTUS to file my application for an emergency stay of the national election. I took a Greyhound bus from Baltimore to Washington, D.C. because I was afraid to use Amtrak where I would have had to present ID for a ticket. I took that bus to the Greyhound station in Washington DC and walked from there to Union Station.
I felt that my life was in danger because I knew that if I could get my case filed before 4:30PM, there was a chance, a remote but genuine chance, that if the SCOTUS rules were followed, my case could stop the general election. As you all know, the SCOTUS rules were not followed when a clerk tried to overrule the SCOTUS precedent from McCarthy v. Briscoe.
I had previoulsy felt the evil operate against my case in the NJ Appellate Division where I experienced sabotage I never thought possible. I felt the full force and power of the cult as it tried to stop my case from having proper procedural ground to move on to SCOTUS.
In the days leading up to Nov. 3, 2008… my cell phone and that of a family member were subjected to treachery that only somebody with serious power could have accomplished. Because of the dual attacks upon my sanity, I came to Washington D.C. with fear in my heart, but I was not about to stop. Nothing short of a bullet was going to stop me from filing that application on Nov. 3, 2008.
On the Greyhound bus to DC, I had made a plan to pay for a tourist trolley ticket to take me one stop from Union Station to SCOTUS. I figured I would be safer blending in with tourists rather than being alone.
Before leaving for DC the night before, I died my hair blond, shaved, put on rock and roll clothes and stuffed the copies of my application in a hole through the pockets of my jacket which hid the documents in my back.
I looked nothing like the attorney who had been in the Hughes Justice complex all week in New Jersey.
But I made one mistake.
I had my electronic passport in my sneaker. I walked into Union Station to purchase a $35 trolley ticket and probably set off an RFID tracker.
I waited outside of Union Station for the trolley. At approximately 2:45 PM, just after I had purchased my ticket inside the station, I was sitting next to a white homeless man with a grey beard in his 50’s. He had two shopping carts full of clothes, food, radio etc., apparently his life possessions. We were the only two people sitting on this stone circle just outside the station. Suddenly, the homeless man starts gibbering some kind of weird code. He sounded like this,
“Echo one four two seven, target is in the building, repeat target is in the building…”
Then he paused and I looked up and a big SUV had pulled up right next to us, and two BIG mofos in yellow gold shirts got out of the SUV, opened the back door and started putting on body armor and packing mega heat… all the while they are scouring the area for the “target”.
The homeless man is talking to them through a device in his battered shirtsleeve,
“No point in wasting time, I want to get paid for this, target is in the building… Ok, but I thought you might want to just get the target, repeat — target is in the building, target is in the building. Stop wasting time out here.”
He was mixing in code talk with things I could understand.
Finally, these Blackwater types in yellow who had no badges or official insignia head into Union Station carrying full weapons.
I’m having a heart attack. They looked straight at me at least twice but I looked like such a clown. If they were looking for the brown haired bearded intellectual looking lawyer guy who was in court that week there’s no way they would recognize me with shocking platinum hair in my face, a dayglo blue jacket, flared jeans and trainers.
I am a chameleon.
I also had no visible paperwork with me. It was in the back of my jacket and my back was pressed against the stone circle.
When they entered Union Station, the homeless guy turns towards me and hits a button on his cell device and suddenly he’s on speakerphone. The conversation is between him and some woman wherein he’s trying to get confirmation that his payment has been credited to his account. He gives me a sly look, and with that my trolley comes.
I get on the trolley and open my tourist brochure to cover my face. Then I have to sit there for five excrutiating minutes while various people discuss with the dirver whether they should take the tour tonight or tomorrow. Honestly folks, I thought right then and there, “Your life aint worth shit, Leo. You are a walking dead man.”
When I finally got to the steps of SCOTUS, I was prepared to have my head blown off walking up those steps. I was a f**king mess. Seriously. The paranoia was so intense. I even asked for official protection.
I don’t know if they were just trying to scare me, really meant to take me down, or if it was all a coincidence. I’m sure there’s a video tape of it somehwhere. This is 100% true.
After the case was filed, I was followed for weeks. I had choppers over my home every night for hours. It was the typical black helicopter story in spades. But my whole family witnessed the choppers night after night.
The cult knew my case was strong. And it eventually got on every major news network and brought the one issue they had kept silent to the forefront of the nation — the fact that Obama was a dual citizen at birth.

Spewing frivolous bullshit on a blog is free. Spewing frivolous bullshit to a Court can cost $127,987.50.

It's enough to make one surrender his law license.

004401991, DONOFRIO, LEO C, Admin Ineligible

Case 1:10-cv-02493-AKH Document 48 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 1
In re: Old Carco LLC (fka Chrysler LLC, et al) SDNY 10-cv-02493
SUMMARY ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S FEES
10 Civ 2493 (AKH)
09-50002 (AJG)
ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:
On April 27, 2012, I heard oral argument in the above-captioned matter. For the reasons stated on the record, and pursuant to the order of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the motion of Appellee Old Carco Liquidation Trust is timely. I fix the fees owed by Appellant's counsel, Pidgeon & Donofrio GP, at $127,987.50. The Clerk shall enter judgment in that amount against Pidgeon & Donofrio GP and in favor of Old Carco Liquidation Trust.
The Clerk shall mark the motion (Doc. No. 39) terminated and close the docket.
SO ORDERED. Dated: April 20, 2012
New York, New York
__________/s/__________
ALVIN. K. HELLERSTEIN
United States District Judge

- - - - - - - - - -

DOCKET #48:

04/24/2012 51 CLERK'S JUDGMENT # 12,0665 That for the reasons stated in the Court's Summary Order dated April 20, 2012, the motion of Appellee Old Carco Liquidation Trust is timely; the Court fix the fees owed by Appellants counsel, Pidgeon & Donofrio GP, at $127,987.50; accordingly, judgment is entered in that amount against Pidgeon & Donofrio GP and in favor of Old Carco Liquidation Trust and the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 4/24/12) (Attachments: # 1 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL)(ml) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

Woodpusher, you’re a real pip, you know that?

Not everyone thrives on conflict.

Many different specific examples seem to appear in the U.S. statute you’re citing and posting.

Really, a motley and irregular crew of people with various circumstances of birth are listed.

The statute seems to focus overwhelmingly on the foreign-born, does it not?

In every example listed in which the subject is a foreign-born individual, that person’s parentage is “delved into”. Doesn’t it appear to you that this statute is designed to determine if lonely, scattered, fringe, far-flung, insignificant infants that the country might otherwise not even notice or care about will neverthless win the U.S. citizenship-by-birth lottery, solely by virtue of their parentage?

Ahhh...the price of fame.

Say what you will, but someone, somewhere, and at some time was eventually going to divine the significance of the lonely copy of William Arthur’s naturalization record that some New York State functionary sent down to Washington D.C., and that some rookie librarian diligently added to Chet Arthur’s artificially short, thinned-out, and rarely-accessed stack of presidential papers.

Amazing that it took until December 6, 2008, is it not? Or are you inured to centuries-long delays between advancements in the field of presidential scholarship?

Woodpusher, you seem to view the example I cite as a part of a larger group of U.S.-born individuals in different situations. From my perspective, you also seem entranced by the sheer breadth of the statutory language in question. I am also sensing a distinct lack of interest on your part in contemplating any distinctions between and among such individuals that may exist. If the statute does not delve into any such distinctions, why should we, right? Or so your line oF reasoning might go.

Ok, for the time being at least, I say, suit yourself.

But tell me, if you would: What power does the U.S. Congress have under the U.S. Constitution with respect to whether a given human being on this blessed planet we call earth does or does not, or shall or shall not, enjoy the desirable status of Citizen of the United States?

The statute seems to focus overwhelmingly on the foreign-born, does it not?

Your stupid act does not become you.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states:

SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

The 14th Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....

The U.S. Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 829-30 (1970) states:

3. Apart from the passing reference to the “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution's Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born:

“[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States ....”

This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . .” As has been noted above, the amendment's Itundeniable purpose" was “to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure” and not subject to change by mere statute. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S., at 263. See H. Flack, Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 88-94 (1908).
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. 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.”

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

“Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was “declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law.” Before the Revolution, children born in the colonies were baby colonial subjects. After the Revolution, children born in the States were citizens of that State and thereby citizens of the united States. Every single one of the original thirteen States adopted so much of the English common law as did not conflict with the Constitution. The children born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, were born citizens was not a new phenomenon created by the 14th Amendment.

The Court has also ruled that we have just two classes: citizens and aliens. There is no third class.

But this is all so obvious that you know it already.

Say what you will, but someone, somewhere, and at some time was eventually going to divine the significance of the lonely copy of William Arthur’s naturalization record that some New York State functionary sent down to Washington D.C., and that some rookie librarian diligently added to Chet Arthur’s artificially short, thinned-out, and rarely-accessed stack of presidential papers.

Your stupid act really does not become you.

President Chester A. Arthur

President Barack H. Obama

Add the early Presidents who started out as British subjects and had British parents. Eisenhower had no birth certificate.

And just think of all the presidential candidates who had an alien parent.

Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Kamala Harris were born in the United States to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their respective births.

Charles Evans Hughes

The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, one of Woodrow Wilson's campaign workers, and published on December 7, 1916 in the Chicago Legal News — a full month after the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Hughes was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father was not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen (in fact, both his parents were British citizens and never became U.S. citizens). Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also (according to British law) a British subject and therefore "enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance", Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance and stated: "Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a 'natural-born' citizen of the United States."

All this and you “missed” that Chester Arthur’s birthplace was also in question.

Chester A. Arthur, who was sworn in as president when James A. Garfield died after being shot, was rumored to have been born in Canada.
Chester A. Arthur was born in Vermont on October 5, 1829 to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland (who later became a U.S. citizen, 14 years after Chester A. Arthur was born). His mother, Malvina Stone Arthur, was a native of Berkshire, Vermont, who moved with her family to Quebec, where she met and married the future president's father, William Arthur, on April 12, 1821. After the family had settled in Fairfield, Vermont, somewhere between 1822 and 1824, William Arthur traveled with his eldest daughter to East Stanbridge, Canada, in October 1830 and commuted to Fairfield on Sundays to preach. “It appears that he traveled regularly between the two villages, both of which were close to the Canada–US border, for about eighteen months, holding two jobs”, which may well explain the confusion about Chester A. Arthur's place of birth, as perhaps did the fact that he was born in Franklin County, and thus within a day's walk of the Vermont–Quebec border. Moreover, Chester A. Arthur himself added a bit of confusion into the record by sometimes reporting his birth year as 1830.
No evidence of his having been born in Canada was ever demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, an attorney who had investigated Chester A. Arthur's family history, raised the allegation as an objection during his vice-presidential campaign and, after the end of his presidency, published a book on the subject.