Posted on 04/08/2024 5:27:10 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Apr. 8, 2024) — by Joseph DeMaio
The writer first presents text from Paul Clement and Neal Katyal’s 2015 subject essay followed by his own commentary in bold, indented text. Page breaks in the original C&K text are indicated in brackets.]
Deep Dive Part 3
“While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15 Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.
[Again, this statement is simple ipse dixit based only on the manufactured narrative that “it is so because they say it is so.” The use of the term “happenstance” seems to have as its primary goal the trivializing and marginalizing of the fact that someone was born outside of the geographic boundaries of the United States.
[In point of fact, birth “in” the country is a sine qua non requirement of the definition of a natural born citizen in § 212 and was of central concern as well to the Founders, as corroborated by their inclusion of the “Citizen-grandfather” clause as an exception to the highly restrictive nbC eligibility clause.] ... continue reading at the link provided.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
PART I — 2024-04-02: Here is the link to Part I of this critique and analysis of the linguistic trickery of Paul Clement and Neal Katyal’s 2015 paper on “natural born Citizen” (nbC): https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/04/02/a-critique-of-on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
PART II — 2024-04-04: Here is the link to Part II of this critique and analysis of the linguistic trickery of Paul Clement and Neal Katyal’s 2015 paper on “natural born Citizen” (nbC): https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/04/04/a-critique-of-on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen-2/
PART III — 2024-04-08: Here is the link to Part III of this critique and analysis of the linguistic trickery of Paul Clement and Neal Katyal’s 2015 paper on “natural born Citizen” (nbC): https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/04/08/a-critique-of-on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen-part-iii/
Clement and Katyal’s “analysis” was a self serving screed to legitimize not just their Fearless Leader Obama but Katyal’s co-ethnics such as Harris.
No one thought this way prior to 1990.
We know what natural born citizen is. My family has been here since 1646. We ain`t stupid. It means a guys`s parents have to be born here. His mother and father are natives, original inhabitants of the land, i.e., born in USA, not immigrated. Why don`t these scholars go out and interview descendants of families who have been here almost 400 yearn`...`. You ain`t gonna find the answers in them stupoiud books. My cat is smarter than these schowlers. These schowlers are really dumb people.. they really are...dumb and dumber...
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Congressional Research Service Report
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Jack Maskell
Legislative Attorney
November 14, 2011
[excerpt]
Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1
[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]
8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION
c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth: Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
We know what natural born citizen is. My family has been here since 1646. We ain`t stupid. It means a guys`s parents have to be born here. His mother and father are natives, original inhabitants of the land, i.e., born in USA, not immigrated.
_________________________________________________
How very smart you are. May I presume that you never voted for a non-NBC. And never will.
So. If you didn’t vote for Trump, who did you vote for?
the beginning of your posted comment mentions subjects and Citizens, the bolded ending portion just mentions subject, not Citizen.
did you miss that? Seems the words are not interchangeable to the writer of Wong Kim Ark... that you posted.
the beginning of your posted comment mentions subjects and Citizens, the bolded ending portion just mentions subject, not Citizen.did you miss that? Seems the words are not interchangeable to the writer of Wong Kim Ark... that you posted.
The writer of Wong Kim Ark was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray writing for a 6-2 majority.
"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens."
It does not say all persons born in the United States to two U.S. citizens.
The ending portion of my #4 uses the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction," and that has nothing to do with being a subject (of the king) vs. being a citizen. That has to do with being subject to the laws of the United States.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 658-59:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
When silly birther nonsense is presented to a court, the results are predictable.
https://casetext.com/case/kerchner-v-obama-2
Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (2010) Third Circuit, July 1, 2010
III.Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 provides that "[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee." "The purpose of an award of attorneys' fees under Rule 38 is to compensate appellees who are forced to defend judgments awarded them in the trial court from appeals that are wholly without merit, and to preserve the appellate court calendar for cases worthy of consideration." Huck v. Dawson, 106 F.3d 45, 52 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation and citation omitted). "Damages [under Rule 38] are awarded by the court in its discretion... as a matter of justice to the appellee." Beam v. Bauer, 383 F.3d 106, 108 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation and citation omitted). An "important purpose [of a damages award] is to discourage litigants from unnecessarily wasting their opponents' time and resources." Nagle v. Alspach, 8 F.3d 141, 145 (3d Cir. 1993).
"This court employs an objective standard to determine whether or not an appeal is frivolous" which "focuses on the merits of the appeal regardless of good or bad faith." Hilmon Co. v. Hyatt Int'l, 899 F.2d 250, 253 (3d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation omitted). We have stated that "an appeal from a frivolous claim is likewise frivolous." Beam, 383 F.3d at 108. Appellants had ample notice that this appeal had no merit. They should have been aware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Barnett v. Obama, No. 09-0082, F. Supp. 2d, 2009 WL 3861788, at *4-*6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (holding that active and former military personnel lack Article III standing requirements to challenge President Obama's eligibility for office); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (holding that a federal prisoner who alleged that then-Senator Obama was "an illegal alien impersonating a United States citizen" lacked standing under Article III), aff'd, Cohen v. Obama, 332 F. App'x 640 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Examination of this precedent would have made it "obvious to a reasonable attorney that an appeal from the District Court's order was frivolous, [as no] law or facts... support a conclusion that the District Court judge had erred." Beam, 383 F.3d at 109. Moreover, other courts have imposed sanctions for similar reasons. See Hollister v. Soetero, 258 F.R.D. 1, 2-5 (D.D.C. 2009) (reprimanding an attorney under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) for signing and filing a complaint alleging that President Obama was ineligible to serve as president because he is not a "natural born Citizen"), aff'd, Hollister v. Soetoro, Nos. 09-5080, 09-5161, 2010 WL 1169793 (D.C. Cir. March 22, 2010); see also Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1373 (M.D.Ga. 2009) (imposing monetary sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3) against counsel who filed similar claims on behalf of members of the military), aff'd, Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 09-15418, 2010 WL 892848 (11th Cir. March 15, 2010).
In the past, "we cautioned counsel that a finding by a District Court that a lawsuit is frivolous should serve as notice to the parties and their attorney to exercise caution, pause, and devote additional examination to the legal validity and factual merit of his contentions." Beam, 383 F.3d at 109 (quotation omitted). Although the District Court did not explicitly state that Appellants' claims were frivolous, the finding of other district courts that plaintiffs who filed complaints based on similar legal theories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should have served as meaningful notice that the appeal here would be frivolous.5 We therefore will order Appellants' counsel to show cause why he should not pay just damages and costs for having filed a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.
IV.
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court's order of dismissal.
Trump’s mother was a British subject.
Obama’s father was a Kenyan.
There you go.
Sovereign citizens can at least be entertaining. Vattelites prattling on about the Law of Nations, blissfully unaware that its modern name is International Law, has been going on for sixteen years now.
Chester Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen. He was both VP and later President.
Ah, I see you are using the typical OBOT tactic to steer the thread off course by attacking the messenger and not discussing the specific arguments put forward in Joseph DeMaio’s three part critique of the linguistic trickery in the C&K 2015 paper about the meaning of the nbC term in our U.S. Constitution. And your buddies in linguistic crime here are engaging in name calling and character assassination. OBOTs tag-teamwork at their finest.
As to my treatment before the courts, it is an obvious example of early law-fare threats at its finest. Deflections by the courts like lack of standing, political question, or frivolous filings, etc., instead of taking on the issue and determining in the federal court system the true meaning and original intent of the nbC term in the presidential eligibility clause. And we see that law-fare and courts doing dirty deeds instead of their constitutional duty in full action against Donald Trump these days in even more obvious use.
The Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al case was the first totally “ripe” case since Obama was now the “President Elect” having skated by the hurdles of the Electoral College and action by Congress to protect the Constitution from an ineligible usurper being put in the highest office, and had not yet been sworn in at the time it was filed.
By the way, you did not report that Atty Mario Apuzzo (now deceased) challenged the 3rd Circuit on their threat of damages in an extensive and thorough answer to the court as to why the appeal was not frivolous and by his requesting a public hearing on their threats to prove they were wrong, per his rights under the rules of the court, and the 3rd Circuit judges quietly backed off dropped that idea of theirs to sanction him. The courts did not want any light on the issue from a public hearing on the various issues in play. Thus, Atty Apuzzo was not sanctioned. The 3rd Circuit ducked on that law-fare attempt of theirs to scare off Atty Apuzzo. It did not work.
And from there as you OBOTs know so we were on to the U.S. Supreme Court, who under the compromised leadership of Chief Justice Roberts as the history of my and other cases brought on the nbC issue, it has evaded the issue. Justice Thomas told us that in a Congressional hearing. From top to bottom the federal court system used every tactic at their disposal to not take a case and try it on the merits. Why? Because they new the answer. And Obama was not constitutionally a natural born Citizen of the United States and the courts were afraid to take him on as both major political parties were in on the fix to abrogate the nbC term in the 2008 election cycle. See: https://www.calameo.com/books/0058410031629810ae268
Readers can see the various filings in my federal lawsuit here, including the Supreme Court filing: https://www.scribd.com/document/61221761/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-for-2nd-Amended-Complaint
But as we have learned by the process, the fix was in at all levels of the courts in our nation to abrogate the original intent, meaning, and the WHY of the nbC term in the presidential eligibility clause. See: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
And we got the Usurper in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama with his Marxist, Islamic, anti-American “Dreams From My Father” agenda who then proceeded to implement his destruction of our constitutional republic. And Team Obama continues in that process via his 3rd term behind the curtains controlling Biden and Harris.
So continue to attack the messenger here as you likely will continue to do instead of addressing the specifics arguments made by Joseph DeMaio’s critique and writings about the linguistic trickery used by Clements and Katyal in their 2015 paper. Or did all you OBOTs not even read the three part analysis and critique? Probably not, imo.
You cited Jack Maskell per the clip below. See the links below for constitutional scholar Joseph DeMaio’s analysis and critique of Maskell’s linguistic torts used in that CRS Memos, and also in the other CRS memos on the subject of nbC which were written to give the members of Congress a unified disinformation answer to the numerous constituent’s letters and email and phone calls questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility.
[excerpt]
Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
Constitutional scholar Joseph DeMaio’s critique of Atty Maskell’s CRS Memo and its linguistic torts:
Part 1: https://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/20/of-presidential-eligibility-doubling-down-and-linguistic-torts-part-1/
Part 2: https://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/22/of-presidential-eligibility-doubling-down-and-linguistic-torts-part-2/
Part 3: https://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/24/of-presidential-eligibility-doubling-down-and-linguistic-torts-part-3/
Part 4: https://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/26/of-presidential-eligibility-doubling-down-and-linguistic-torts-conclusion/
The reply to your comment citing the CRS Memo back in 2011 is found in Joseph DeMaio’s four part article in early 2012 citing the linguistic torts used by Maskell and the CRS in writing those memos. See and read the answers in the links above.
The Preamble defines who is a natural-born citizen.
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.
Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?
How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?
That language seems plain enough to me. The whole Constitution must be read within the context of the purpose as stated by the Framers in the Preamble: the Constitution was framed specifically to ensure the country to its people and their children - the natural born of the country.
If you are an alien who becomes a naturalized citizen, you become one of We the People, and then your children that follow become the nation's posterity.
Natural-born citizens are the nation's "posterity" that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.
#2 - Thomas Paine writes in The Rights of Man about natural born Citizens just two years after the Constitution's ratification.
From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 - Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791:
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
-PJ
Here’s your “silly birther” scenario- KGB agent sneak into the country, have a child, go back to Russia with the child, raise the child to be a Manchurian candidate; come back to the US when he’s age-eligible and he runs as the international candidate in the Democrat primary. Born of illegal parents, spent one day in America… You think he is a natural-born citizen. Silly you.
...and Chester Arthur hid that fact because he knew that a Natural Born Citizen, as indicated in the qualifications for president requires both jus sanguinis and jus soli.
Born of US citizens (by any means), and within the US.
Obama never even proved he was born. The standing orders in Hawaii remain for the guards to destroy the piece of paper that was never allowed any official examination for authenticity, and readily seen by unofficial analysts as a forgery.
A forgery based upon a document posted on DailyKos with the name “Ima Forgery”.
I find it an interesting coincidence that grandma (where he claimed he found his birth certificate - in her apartment) died 2 days before the election in 2008.
Probably ... just ... a coincidence.
And we got the Usurper in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama with his Marxist, Islamic, anti-American “Dreams From My Father” agenda who then proceeded to implement his destruction of our constitutional republic. And Team Obama continues in that process via his 3rd term behind the curtains controlling Biden and Harris.
_______________________________
Try as they might, the framers with their insightful cautionary Article II language could not keep the Country safe from Judicial numbskulls who were intent in 2007 to subvert the Constitution (no citizen ‘standing’), which bought ruination upon a Country that the framers risked their lives to create. Such a treasonous act will go down in history as the undoing of America.
[And we got the Usurper in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama with his Marxist, Islamic, anti-American “Dreams From My Father” agenda who then proceeded to implement his destruction of our constitutional republic. And Team Obama continues in that process via his 3rd term behind the curtains controlling Biden and Harris.]
Yep. I tried telling people that he wasn’t done (in 2016).
That same year I told people (multiple times on this forum) that the Democrats would start World War III with Russia just to prove that “Hillary was right” (as we all know, she was lying the whole time, as usual, and had planted “the ‘evidence’” via her acolytes).
Wish I’d had saved some of those references though I might be able to search for them.
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.