Leo had a smackdown on his site over this very sentence with the disbarred lawyer who apparently wrote the Rhodes lawsuit for Orly .
Leo said it should have been broken into two distinct fact statements, one regarding evidence of location of birth, and one regarding dual citizenship. Two statements of fact would lead the judge could rule on each fact separately.
The sentence you quoted doesn't assert as a fact that Obama is not a natural born citizen due to his admission against interest that he was a dual citizen status at birth, rather it only asks Obama to confirm a weak confusing statement he is not eligible due to his father not being a US citizen.
The judge cannot rule that Obama should confirm facts, the judge can only rule on fact assertions by the plaintiff.
Leo said that even in losing and getting threats of sanctions, Orly is providing herself and other attorneys a roadmap of how to construct a potentially more successful pleading and refile it, although the standing of military plaintiffs seems doomed.
The judge's footnote in the Kenyan BC evidence, for example seemed to clearly indicate that if either BC had been authenticated in advance under FRCP, such evidence would not have been frivolous (tall order, given Kenyan non-compliance with authentication).
I await Leo's post tomorrow.
Oh. Let me be clear that I agree w/ Leo to the extent he’s saying that the pleadings are a mess. They are. I was just saying that she did raise the argument, however inartfully.
Rhodes Complaint P 148. “All that is asked of the President is that he humbly acknowledge and produce his true and complete original birth certificate, and that he then confirm and acknowledge that, no matter where he was born, he cannot be President because one of his parents (Obama‘s natural father) was not a US citizen at the time of his son‘s birth.”
That seems to me to be a question of law, not fact. How can Obama be forced to answer a question, when there is no court ruling that one’s parents must both be US Citizens in order to be President? (This question has never been asked or answered in the Supreme Court.)
Where’s Orly’s support for the claim in her filing/complaint? (Citatation to the Constitutional provision which so provides, case law, US Code, etc.?)
If you are asking a court to make a determination as to the legal issues involved in such a question, you can’t expect to make the Defendant admit to something where there is no legal support for the conclusion. Especially when there is no legal authority to reach the conclusion she is asking him to reach and “admit.”
If Obama is born in the US, I believe he’s a natural born US Citizen, unless he father was a diplomat and outside the scope of lawful US Jurisdiction during the time of his presence here. I have found no basis for the claim that both parents must be a US Citizen, if you are born in the US, in order to be a natural born US Citizen. (Or at least not post 14th Amendment and the US v Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898.) As just mentioned, the Ark decision found a person born, on US soil, of two non-citizens to be a US citizen at birth. (Further, neither of the parents were even capable of being US citizens as they were prohibited by Federal law at the time which discriminated against Chinese immigrants and disqualified them from naturalization)
Basically, there are only two types of US Citizens - natural born and naturalized. The 14th Amendment grants one citizenship upon birth on US soil. If born in a US state (Hawaii) or qualifying US Territory then the notion that somehow Obama isn’t qualified due to the non-citizenship of his father is very far-fetched given the SCOTUS’s decisions on citizenship in the past and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.
Besides, the fact that his father was a British subject was well known BEFORE Obama became president and if there were any substantial law which prevented him from becoming president, why did NO ONE on a national level (such as the Republican Party) challenge his placement on the ballot for that reason?
So again, basically Orly is asking Obama to “admit” something that he really can’t even admit. There is absolutely no presumption that Orly’s claims in regard to both parents needing to be US Citizens in order to be a natural born citizen are correct and she has presented nothing in her filings to support her claim.
Perhaps because that is the real test, that is the father's nationality. What some other country considers a person to be is of no importance. It's the parent's citizenship when the child is born, not the child's "dual" citizenship, if any. Even if the parent's country doesn't consider the child one of it's nationals, the child may not be a natural born citizen.