Replies

“Show the passages. Again, the burden is on you to show this and not make somebody else hunt for it. I’ve given you several opportunities and you keep dodging.”

Here you go, no hunting involved!
Initial Decision Purpura v. Obama [OAL DKT. STE 4534-12 AND STE 4588-12 (April 10, 2012)
Pages 5-7:
The second objection involves the meaning of the Constitutional phrase, “natural born Citizen.” Discussion and consideration of this issue is of course relevant only on the understanding that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. This issue has been the subject of litigation concerning Mr. Obama’s candidacy in several jurisdictions. No court,federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obamais not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessaryto reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here. While there are several decisions that could be cited, the decision issued by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. As the court therein noted, and as the petitioners here have contended, the thrust of the argument against Obama’s status as natural born is that there is a “clear distinction between being a ‘citizen of the United states’ and a ‘natural born Citizen.’”Id. at 685. The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various earlysources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen can be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position. {2}

In Wong Kim Ark,Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born”and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country,and continuing to the present day, . . . 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. 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 Statesafterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26,40, 41 (1860).
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are
natural-born subjects, and all person 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.

The Wong Kim Ark Court then stated:
We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle
of the common law has ever been changed
in the UnitedStates. It has always obtained here
with the same vigor,and subject only to the same exceptions [children ofambassadors, etc.], since
as before the Revolution.
[Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct.
at 462].

The Georgia Secretary of State recently denied a similar challenge to Mr. Obama’s status as a natural born citizen in Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MAHIHI, where Georgia State Administrative Law Judge Mahili relied upon Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark for his ruling that the President was indeed a natural born citizen.
_______________________________________________________
{2}
The Wong Kim Ark decision was preceded by Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167, 22L.Ed. 627 (1874), where the Supreme Court stated that while the Constitution did not say “in words” “who shall be natural-born citizens” there were “some authorities” who held that “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were citizens. The Court concludes that it was not necessary to decide that issue in Minor. Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office. Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term and its meaning in this country. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at the state level and not on a national basis, as counsel here claims.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

Here you go, no hunting involved!

Nonsense. The first paragraph you copied has no citations to a stated legal precedent. The second paragraph contains nothing directly related to presidential eligibility with the possible exception of Wong Kim Ark's citation of U.S. v. Rhodes, which itself was referencing Shanks v. Dupont. That citation proves that Obama cannot be a natural-born citizen because he was born "in the allegiance of the king." That's what that citation was referring to. It allowed that persons born in the United States could be born in the allegiance of another country WITHOUT just being born to 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." Thanks for helping prove my point so very clearly.

Here you go, no hunting involved!

Nonsense. The first paragraph you copied has no citations to a stated legal precedent. The second paragraph contains nothing directly related to presidential eligibility with the possible exception of Wong Kim Ark's citation of U.S. v. Rhodes, which itself was referencing Shanks v. Dupont. That citation proves that Obama cannot be a natural-born citizen because he was born "in the allegiance of the king." That's what that citation was referring to. It allowed that persons born in the United States could be born in the allegiance of another country WITHOUT just being born to 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." Thanks for helping prove my point so very clearly.

If Mitzi Torri, Attorney for IRS, New Orleans office, made any threats against you or others under any of her pseudonyms, please forward the screenshots and links to orly.taitz@gmail.com

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=421546