Free Republic

In a tweet Gillar said the layering was caused by a Xerox 7655 copier

https://x.com/gillar1776/status/1246912642637344770

The posse claimed they found something. They also at one time claimed Obama’s BC certificate number was out of sequence but admitted they were wrong. To this day they have refused to release their expert reports.

Not OCR.

MCR - Mixed Raster Content compression.

This PDF also has layers because it was scanned on a Xerox copier/scanner.

https://berkleemusic.s3.amazonaws.com/network_file_shares/files/29649/original/scanned_from_xerox_multifunction_device_(1).pdf

Read for yourself.

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/428-After-Birth.html

This is false. The EO did not seal his personal records

Yet a computer image analyst (Dr. Neal Krawetz) looked at the PDF and layers and said there were not suspicious.

And others were able to reproduce the layers using only the scanning operations of a Xerox Workcenter 7535.

Finally Mark Gillar who produced the videos for Sheriff Arpaio admitted the layers are the results the scanning software in a Xerox Workcenter 7535.

All of Trump’s children (except Tiffany) were born to a US Citizen father and an alien mother.

Yes or no, are they natural born citizens?

Doesn’t natural born citizenship require two citizen parents?

“You know the court records are lost”

Of course I’m aware that the record’s of the case are lost but your statement on what Rawle argued seemed to go beyond speculation (“He also argued that being born on the soil made someone a “citizen””).

I thought maybe you had come across some other documentation (letters, diary entries, etc) from Rawle, Ingersoll or Lewis.

Is there actual documentation that she is related to slave owner Hamilton Brown?

Why would he do that. All of his kids would be exclude from the presidency except Tiffany.

Adams used the two terms in a draft commerce treaty with England in 1785.

Of course since it requires two citizen parents there were no natural born citizens in 1783 and 1785 except for those born after July 4th, 1776.

“He also argued that being born on the soil made someone a “citizen”, and therefore all slaves born in America were free.”

Do you have a link to his brief where he made that argument?

“He [Rawle] is a London trained lawyer (London only teaches British law)”

You know who else were London trained lawyers?

These Framers of the Constitution.

John Blair of Virginia studied law at London’s Middle Temple.

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina studied law London’s Middle Temple, attended Christ Church Christ Church College, Oxford, where he heard the lectures of the legal authority Sir William Blackstone and graduated in 1764.

John Rutledge of South Carolina studying law at London’s Middle Temple in 1760

William Houston of Georgia legal training at Inner Temple in London.

John Dickinson of Delaware In 1753, Dickinson went to England to continue his studies at London’s Middle Temple.

Of the remaining lawyers at the Convention most were trained in the 1760s so they would have been trained in English Common Law as it applied to the American colonies.

“His father [Rawle’s] was a British Loyalist”

No. His father, Francis Rawle died in 1761. His step-father, Samuel Shoemaker was a loyalist.

“That case referenced with William Lewis and Jared Ingersoll is “Negress Flora v Joseph Graisberry”.”

Also often cited as Negro Flora v Joseph Graisberry.

Rawle argued that the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution outlawed slavery.

“Accordingly they arranged the famous case of Negro Flora v. Joseph Graisberry, and brought it up to the Supreme Court of the state in 1795. It was not settled there, but went up to what was at that time the ultimate judicial authority in Pennsylvania, the High Court of Errrors and Appeals. Some seven years after the question had first been brought to law this august tribunal decided after lengthy and able argument that negro slavery did legally exist before the adoption of the constitution of 1790, and that it had not been abolished thereby.”

In Massachusetts the same argument had been successfully used in Littleton v Tuttle, 4 Massachusetts 128

How does it evade the mandatory requirement (I’m assuming she even had to report but I don’t believe she would have need to report being she was a US citizen)?

Her birthday is still Oct 20, 1964 and her certificate number is still 64-295984. They are not creating a new certificate, they are amending the original certificate and only her middle name on that.

1) full coarse load

If you go to this USCIS webpage

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/foia/Shyamala_Gopalan_Harris.pdf

Scroll down to page 112 of 154 there is a January 1961 report from the Cal Berkeley Registrar informing the Immigration and Naturalization Service that she is considered a full time student because she is taking 6 units and working as a research assistant. The University considered that to be full time.

2) repeating courses.

212 is a seminar
290 is an advance Seminar
299 is a research course

These are usually independent study classes and can be repeated for credit.

This 1961 coarse catalog for the graduate level Nutrition Department shows 290 as an advance seminar that can be taken multiple times for credi.Enter 291 in the box next to “of 437”.

https://digicoll.lib.berkeley.edu/record/1642?ln=en&v=pdf

I don’t see 212 listed but since it is on her official transcripts I would assume the University approved her taken them.

3) working for economic reasons.

Maybe she found out that even in 1959 living in California is more expense than India. Or maybe her master professor or thesis advisor wanted her to do research for them and because she was on a student visa they had to get permission.

It would appear the University was aware of her course work and load and were fine with it. The Immigration Service also didn’t seem to complain.

So if she was a full-time student and here on a temporary student visa where is the fraud?

Harris has one California birth certificate with one certificate number 64-295984.

The certificate was amended (it is stamped AMENDED on the first page) to correct the spelling of her middle name. There is nothing unusual or illegal about that.

“The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside. ‘ This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over those latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country.” In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (9th Cir. 1884)

https://casetext.com/case/in-re-look-tin-sing

Was she still a student when she got married?

Was she still here on a student visa?

Does the 1958 form specifical prohibit marriage and getting pregnant while here on a student visa?

As near as I can tell the 1952 Act neither encouraged nor discourages student visa holders from getting married or having children.

Are you filing any lawsuits?