News from Alan Keyes: Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to Proceed

AIPNews.com ^ | October 7, 2009 | Alan Keyes

[EternalVigilance]

By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty

 

I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.

Loyal to Liberty ...

[RegulatorCountry]

Obama SR was already married. The marriage in Hawaii was not valid.

Prove it. Hearsay doesn't count. The marriage would certainly be valid under Hawaiian and U.S. law.

[Mr. Wright]

I am not so sure an appeal would be warranted — it could be
filed but perhaps an appeal would be denied based on the findings of the lower court.

[rolling_stone]

Depends on state law whether a marriage is void or voidable. You can call it what you want but Hawaii said Family Court has jurisdiction to annull marriages and lists “bigamous” marriages as one that can be annulled. A person married in Hawaii cannot just declare their marriage is void. Next who has standing to bring suit?

http://www.justanswer.com/questions/1imfy-met-husband-june-2007-hawaii

[RummyChick]

You truly do not understand what you are reading...and I am not going to keep beating my head against the wall.

The fact that an annulment can be issued on certain grounds does not mean the marriage was valid. Go read some case law.

My god, I just can’t keep dealing with this.

Believe whatever you want.

[mlo]

"I'm still needing to see your source for this, mlo. There is no admission, anywhere, to my knowledge, that Barack Obama retained British citizenship after Kenyan independence. The much-touted FactCheck states that his British citizenship was "short-lived."

I'm not disputing that. I'm not part of this argument.

[Seizethecarp]

“... and you believe this to be relevant to Obama’s eligibility as President just how? He was born subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain, no matter how you slice it or what foreign code you cite.”

No, he was subject to the 1948 BNA under which he MAY be illegitimate due to the POSSIBLE bigamous marriage of his parents and the PROBABILITY that he never legitimated under the requirements of 1948 ACT to gain British citizenship.

If the HI marriage of his parents was not bigamous, then to me he would clearly not be a NBC due to dual citizenship, as I agree with Leo's analysis with the exception of his assumption of a non-bigamous marriage.

[RegulatorCountry]

The dual citizenship would merely drive the point home, because the foreign citizenship is British, freighted with all the negative connotations to the Founders as it would be. It paints a more compelling picture, in other words.

It’s not the dual citizenship at birth itself that precludes natural-born citizen status, though, it would be the circumstance under which that dual citizenship arose, which was having a father who was not himself a citizen. The jurisdiction at birth would not be complete. This would be true, whether or not literal citizenship was legally conferred by the foreign jurisdiction or whether it was not.

[Seizethecarp]

“Do you honestly think any court in the world is going to declare Barack Obama a bastard, for any reason at all?”

Obama himself will petition the court to declare him a bastard if he is backed into the corner on the NBC issue! That has been his ace in the hole all along IMO. He (or Ayers) put in Dreams that he wasn't sure that his parents were ever actually married in HI so he already put before the public the idea that he was a bastard. Having a 20 year relationship with Kezia would have given him a front row seat to the reality of his father's bigamy.

[RegulatorCountry]

It’s not an out, though. Legal paternity has been firmly established by documentation in evidence.

[Seizethecarp]

All Obama has to do to prove his father's bigamy is to fly Kezia in and put her on the stand. Dual citizen case bye-bye!

[RegulatorCountry]

And what can he do about his documented, legal paternity as the son of Barack, Sr., citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies?

[STARWISE]

Bumping my post to you.. still interested
in your response to the below, for the 2nd
time:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’m still interested in your response to my post to you and the answers to the questions I posed.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2356926/posts?page=1515#1515

[mlo]

"It’s only logical to one reviewing the history and their incredible suffering, death and sacrifice in establishing this momentous undertaking, that at the minimum of what they could control and devise, they set out to make certain that their descendants of future leaders of this new nation were to be those with, among other established common sense standards, incontrovertably confirmed citizenship data and familial origins and roots, thereby assuring the most optimum chance of sole allegiance to America with no hint of loyalty to another nation...."

"Would you agree this was their intent, incorporated as much as possible in the official documents of the time?"

No, I wouldn't. There's no mention of documentation requirements, let alone "incontrovertably confirmed" ones. Nothing about "familial origins and roots". You can't just make this stuff up.

Regarding the "no hint of loyalty to another nation", I've already covered that. You can't make a law about what someone feels inside. That's what you are expecting.

The founders didn't have such an expectation. Their intent, *motivated* by their desire to limit divided loyalty, was to create the reasonable rule that the President be born a citizen. In effect, barring immigrants who come here from another country and become naturalized.

[danamco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugPyHCqYG7w

[mlo]

"Would the Founder’s and the Constitution assert that my Mother would be eligible, and completely without any taint of foreign allegiance or loyalty to another country, if she eventually successfully ran for and became VP of the US when she was 35?"

The Constitution doesn't say "and completely without any taint of foreign allegiance or loyalty to another country". It only requires that she be a "natural born citizen". And by US law and long-standing principles of both English and US Common Law, since she was born here, she qualifies.

[mlo]

"Their intent, *motivated* by their desire to limit divided loyalty, was to create the reasonable rule that the President be born a citizen."

Thinking about it, it might be helpful to focus on the two words, "motivation" and "intent". They are different things.

I see a lot of posts about what the founders thought, what goal they were aiming for, etc. This is "motivation". It is the impetus for their action.

"Intent" means, what did they believe their words meant?

"Motivation" is the reason they chose to do something. "Intent" is the thing they chose to do. In this case we are talking about some very abstract "motivation". Guarding against divided loyalties. But those abstractions have to be translated into a real action. You can't write a law against "divided loyalties". So they translated that motiviation into the "intent" of barring immigrants from the Presidency, as expressed by the words "natural born citizen".

You may believe their effort was inadequate. You are entitled to that opinion. But it's a mistake to confuse their "intent" behind the written words of the constitution, with their "motiviation" for wanting to write something in there.

[STARWISE]

Thanks for eventually responding. I see you
surgically examine my words ... written as a
Constitutional Law neophyte ... in an attempt
to describe the backdrop for their logical
approach (borne of their tumultuous, bloody
and costly battles for independence from the
Crown) and, as much as possible to strive to
eliminate rogue future leaders who had foreign
familial origins and questionable allegiances.

Maternity and paternity of the candidate are at
the minimum a logical fundamental basis from
which to begin the vetting process and gauge
national loyalty.

You seem determined to discount the known
chapters of our history and the basis for why
they even dealt with the issue (though the
exact word ‘allegiance’ is not written in the
clause.)

I don’t, and believe it didn’t have to be ..
they and all of the time knew and lived the
reasons for their concerns for future leaders
when they specified the citizenship requirements.

Otherwise, why even deal with the issue at all
by including it ?

What’s your premise for why they did ?

Your hypothesis discounts their history, common
sense, and their logical intent and desires for
future leaders of this infant nation for very
sound reasons.

Mine does not.

And I don’t believe those sound reasons have
somehow evaporated over the centuries.

We disagree about the hypothetical situation
with my Mother.

If Fidel Castro had fathered a son or daughter
from a tryst with an American citizen in New York
while he was here for a UN conference, do you
believe that child .. born here and raised here
with the American mother, with his father’s name
on the birth certificate, paternity acknowledged
... could one day legally run for and become
president or vice president of the US?

Are you an attorney ?

Please respond to all my queries. Thank you.

[Seizethecarp]

Legal paternity in HI is not the same thing as legitimacy under the 1948 BNA and would not make BHO II a dual citizen under the 1948 BNA. Whether HI continued to view the marriage as valid unless and until a legal proceeding voided the marriage is irrelevant to application of the 1948 BNA, although it does establish that his father was not a US citizen.

Kezia’s testimony in HI that BHO Sr was a bigamist and that she, Kezia, was his only legal wife from 1957 to his death under Kenya law (backed up by testifying experts on that law paid for by Obama to save his presidency if it came to that) would not refute the legal paternity of BHO II, but would refute dual citizenship.

Like Obama said, the children of his father were governed by the 1948 BNA and is says BHO II is illegitimate and not a dual citizen if his parent's marriage was bigamous.

It was fear of the conflicting loyalties of dual sovereignty that the founders mostly cited in requiring soil and blood citizenship, but they were also concerned about foreign influence, so I grant that having a foreign father out-of-wedlock might sway a court to rule against Obama’s NBC status on that basis alone. But while not mentioning marriage status of the parents in the constitutions NBC clause, it can be argued that they did not contemplate illegitimate children at all and thus didn't mention it. I just don't know how a current court would rule.

[mlo]

"You seem determined to discount the known chapters of our history and the basis for why they even dealt with the issue (though the exact word ‘allegiance’ is not written in the clause.)"

I'm not discounting them. I'm refusing to apply them to something where it doesn't belong. Just because that history exists doesn't mean that the words "natural born citizen" mean any more than what they appear to mean, someone that is born a citizen.

[mlo]

"What’s your premise for why they did ?"

To prohibit immigrants from being President.

"Your hypothesis discounts their history, common sense, and their logical intent and desires for future leaders of this infant nation for very sound reasons."

No, it doesn't discount their history. It is not common sense to read a list of extra requirements into the simple words "natural born citizen". There is no reference to parents in those three words, let alone a very particular status of those parents. It is not "common sense" to insist it's there.

Again, you are confusing motiviation with intent.

As for the various scenarios you keep asking me, they've been answered. I don't see the point it answering the same thing over and over. Mine does not.