Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution?

Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution?

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells



At the time of the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, there were only 2 types of citizens defined by US Law.

Natural born citizens and everyone else, citizens. There were no legally naturalized citizens and no provision in US Law to be naturalized until 1790.

That is why the founding fathers has to be grandfathered in with the following language:

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”

That language and the meaning of natural born citizen have not been altered.

Only the definition of citizen and how to attain citizenship has been altered.

It is believed by myself and many legal scholars that the founding fathers knew that one had to be born on US Soil to US citizen parents (plural).

Three years later in the Naturalization act of 1790 we find a clarification:

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”

Obviously from that language one had to have US citizen parents (plural) to be a natural born citizen.

Senate Resolution 511, that Barack Obama signed, stated:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

Once again citizens (plural).

So from start to finish we have the requirement of 2 US Citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

Ted Cruz had only one US Citizen parent, his mother and he was born in Canada.

Clearly not eligible.

That is why the following article from the Harvard Review is so absurd.

“We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”

This is a big lie!


From Citizen Wells March 16, 2015.

Truths, half truths and lies.

I will make this simple because it is.

Although our laws were derived from British laws and in fact some common laws are in force today, we have heavily modified them beginning with pre revolution colonial laws and the US Constitution.

The article above conveniently, selectively quotes the US Constitution which states:

“no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”

Ted Cruz is a citizen, but since he was not alive at the adoption of the Constitution, he is not by default a natural born citizen.

The Constitution was crafted by individuals with an excellent understanding of the law and a concern for foreign influences.

They made a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen.


Attorney Mario Apuzzo provides a scholarly explanation.

“I read the March 11, 2015 article entitled, “On the Meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen,” written by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, found at 128 Harv.L.Rev.F 161, and accessed at http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ .  The first sentence of the article says:  “We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General.”  The article repeats the existing talking points offered in support of the constitutional eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz (all born citizens are natural born citizens) and offers nothing new.  Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father.  I have written a recent article in which I conclude that Mr. Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  The article is entitled, “What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html .  Katyal and Clement maintain that any child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what means, is a natural born citizen.  They add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen.  But there is no historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did exist.

The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion.  They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen.  They do not examine what was the source of the Framers’ definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified.  They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and posted at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com .
Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-responds-to-harvard-law-review.html#8Lt4afwlA9IQXYvW.99

Read more:





34 responses to “Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution?

  1. citizenwells

    “In short, Katyal and Clement’s article lacks any critical research and reasoning and is nothing more than an attempt to convince the reader that Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen because they said so and the reader has to believe that because they were former heads of the Office of Solicitor General of the United States.”
    Attorney Mario Apuzzo

  2. More “Fig Leaves” for the Constitutionally Unqualified Usurpers – the New Pathway to the Presidency, arrogance and ignorance !

  3. CW………
    …………while Brooke Paige might give circulation, and subsequently a greater general awareness to what has happened to our so called Constitutional requirement (NBC) I look for NOBODY to pay any attention to it any longer. This says that it is only a matter of time until nobody any longer pays any attention to any of the Constitution, after which America will DIE. It is obvious that the Omni present “IF IT FEELS GOOD …DO IT” gang has taken control of our once proud country, whose fathers, and grandfathers of the SNOT NOSED YUPPIES gave their lives to protect. Nice thank you don’t you think! Many of the people who now occupy America have become so mesmerised in their BEHAVIORAL VICES, that they no longer care about anything………including themselves. All they want is MORE, MORE, AND MORE OF THEIR VARIOUS BEHAVIORAL VICES. I BELIEVE THAT NO FORCE ON EARTH CAN NOW NEUTRALISE, AND OR REVERSE THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF AMERICA. It is Americans themselves who are DESTROYING their own country.
    Further I believe that Mr.Putin could now run for POTUS, and not one American would say, or do a damn thing. Our FEMALE yuppies would tell all their friends how C-O-O-L HE IS, and that they voted for him “BECAUSE HE HAS NICE BUNS”. HAR HAR

  4. Don’t know about this post??

    Three Muslim mothers were talking to one another.
    One pulled out a smart phone camera and brought up pictures
    of Muslim babies.
    The fist mother said: Oh, look at Jamal, isn’t he cute look at his hair.
    Here is Omar look at his eyes, said the second mother.
    Then the third mother said, yes that’s nice, but wait until they blow-up.

  5. oldsoldier79
  6. oldsoldier79


    If the readers here on Citizenwells don’t know anything about the citizen-standoff situation that is now going on in Burns Or,,,,,,you better start reading up on it real fast…..

    it could very easily be the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ and the incident that will take this country into MARTIAL LAW and gives us an Emperor Obama forever…..think about that for a moment.

    there is a very dangerous escalation of citizen abuse going on out there right now and the federal government is putting every citizen of this nation to their trick ‘test’……

    Recently a large number of mad citizens took over a government building in defense of the Hammond’s….we wait to see where this leads.

    I warn you not to fall for the foolery that is being employed to drag our country into Marital Law where the only real law, our Constitution, will become a void and useless piece of paper…..

    you have been warned, do not be fooled too.

  7. Regarding the incident in Oregon I share this from one site:

    For more on what looks like a VERY sketchy case, a source more familiar with the situation referred me to an article in The Tri-State Livestock News. Part of that article reads:

    Why the Hammonds?

    “The story is like an onion, you just keep peeling back the layers,” Maupin said.

    In an effort to stave off what they feared was a pending Clinton/Babbitt monument designation in 2000, a group of ranchers on the scenic Steens Mountain worked with Oregon Representative Greg Walden, a Republican, to draft and enact the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act that would prevent such a deed. The ranchers agreed to work with special interest “environmental” groups like the aggressive Oregon Natural Desert Association and others to protect the higher-than 10,000-foot peak.

    A number of ranchers at the top of the mountain traded their BLM permits and private property for land on the valley floor, allowing Congress to create a 170,000 acre wilderness in 2000, with almost 100,000 acres being “cow-free.”

    “The last holdouts on that cow-free wilderness are the Hammonds,” said Maupin. Though some still have BLM grazing permits, the Hammonds are the last private landowners in the area.

    “It’s become more and more obvious over the years that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch. It would tie in with what they have,” said Rusty Inglis, an area rancher and retired U.S. Forest Service employee.

    Just saying..

  8. My two cents?? Okay, you paid your traffic citation. Now, the courts send out the law months later to hand you a new citation because the judge rules you didn’t pay enough!!
    I don’t fricking think so!!!

  9. Goodnight all……………..LOCK, LOAD, AND PRAY! Maybe old Zuess over at Mount Olympus will hear your prayers and whip up a 100 trillion volt lightning bolt and launch it at the WACKEY HOUSE.

  10. There is NO “President” Obama: http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama. For the same reason there will not be a “President” Cruz,Rubio,Jindal,McCain,Swarzenegger,or Sanders who are ineligible. BTW, that 1790 Naturalization Act provision which only “considered” children born abroad to two Americans was an ERROR. Congress repealed that provision in 1795. See: NA of 1795. Those born outside the US even to two American Parents is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” or “considered” to be.
    They are now “Citizens” only. ALL NBCs are Citizens but NOT all citizens are NBCs.

  11. oldsoldier79

    Mr. Laity……my compliments

    You are absolutely correct in your reasoning about the NBC situation and our Constitution……

    Our current problem seems to be that ALL politicians, both democrat, republican, and independent want to “cherry-pick” and read the Constitution as it would best suit their needs……….

    As a nation, we get into an awful lot of trouble when we permit politicians to ‘read into’ our most sacred document of law……most politicians now advocate the complete destruction of this founding document…..

    When, and if this happens, we will be lost as a nation……never to rise again from the ashes.

  12. From Attorney Mario Apuzzo:

    “When the Framers adopted in 1787 and the states ratified in 1788 the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress making anyone a born citizen. Yet there were not only citizens, but also natural born citizens. Citizens were made by adhering to the American Revolution and citizens could also have children who were natural born citizens. Hence, the natural born citizens were persons who become citizens at the moment of birth without needing the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress to bestow citizenship upon them at the time of their birth. Not needing any of these laws to be a citizen from the moment of birth, a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth was a natural born citizen. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797) (“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); Minor v. Happersett (1875) (“all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became. . . natives, or natural-born citizens”); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (“The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle”).

    Senator Ted Cruz “needs” a naturalization Act of Congress and de facto President Barack Obama, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal “need” the Fourteenth Amendment to make them born citizens of the United States. They are therefore all “unnatural” born citizens of the United States, not “natural” born citizens of the United States.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Posted here:


  13. “Industrial Recession Now Inevitable As Manufacturing ISM Worst In Six Years”


  14. oldsoldier79…….
    …..Good morning sir,
    ………..in my view you are absolutely correct. If nobody gets off their a$$es and act soon we will no longer have a country. I have to say at this point I believe that the country has already been grievously compromised by the wanton criminal behavior of Barry Soetoro, along with all of his supporters. I pray that each, and everyone of them soon find themselves in 6’by 8′ iron barred cubicles which we call CELLS, and for permanent vacations within their respective cells for the rest of their lives.
    I personally think that most of the CRIMINALS know the Constitution well, but for their own personal enrichment have chosen to support the criminal usurpation, and circumventing of the LAW OF OUR LAND………..which seems to also have the support of all of our courts, and Congress. There seems to be only two answers for this,……which is legally either TRUMP, or by the terms set down in the Declaration of Independence a potential second Revolutionary war. While TRUMP might be the answer for some things, he cannot immediately change the mentality of our younger generations……….which has become a mentality of EXUBERANT IGNORANCE, taken to the brink of COMPLETE LUNACY.

  15. oldsailor83…….

    Good morning my friend…….
    Here lately, I have been giving a lot of thought to where our country is, how we got here, and where we are headed…..what I have finally decided is not a very pretty picture, and does not hold much hope for the future of this nation.

    Bare with me for a few moments and let me explain how I have arrived at this thought of mind.

    Everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, EXCEPT Barry Soetoro, has been seriously compromised by this corrupt USURPER who now occupies the White House. Through all the intelligence gathering on foreign and DOMESTIC politicians, Obama has gathered enough DIRT on all the politicians, both democrat , republican and independent that they dare not utter a word against anything he says or does……

    I think this position has been amply proven here lately by the publicly discovery of what he had the NSA doing by spying on everyone, both friend and foe.

    His head of the CIA is a confirmed Muslim, now all of his advisers are confirmed Muslim Brotherhood associates, and the Supreme Court is now firmly in his back pocket…..

    As a nation, we have come to this position simply by going to sleep at the wheel………

    If our country is ever to regain any degree of decency, honest government, and moral character again, it will require a very BIG powerful BROOM to sweep the filth, sewage, and stench from every crevice and corner in every governmental building in Washington and across this country…….

    As a nation, “We The People” have permitted this too happen to us. We have silently sit by and let the crooked politicians corrupt all political parties and it appears they have now united their efforts to the point where there is no difference in any politician of either political party.

    If this nation is to survive, “We The People’ cannot, and must not, permit this to continue on our watch, else our children and grandchildren will pay a terrible price for the political corruption that we now open see ‘in our faces’.

    As an old soldier and a devout patriot, I am sickened by what we now have to endure. I’m sure there are millions and millions more of oldsailor’s, and oldsoldier’s, and concerned citizen’s who feel the same as you and I.

    We have been betrayed by the very government we fought to serve and the same government we have protect throughout the years.

    The founding father’s of this great nation are now rolling over in their graves uttering to us these words of doom, …..”Long ago, we told you so……. Your greatest enemies are within the very government you have elected and put into office. Now clean up your own mess before it’s too late.

    Or live forever with a “boot across your neck”. The choice is yours to make”.

  16. Filed and served in Ft. Lauderdale. Case # CACE15022044

  17. oldsoldier79…….
    …….while in my heart and soul lies an unrequited anger towards what is happening to us, Unfortunately for us to correct our problem which you have so aptly pointed out it will require either the entire population, or at least a force greater than 50% of the population, to achieve effectively. It must be carried out with OVERWHELMING FORCE, thoroughly and COMPLETELY. There are only a couple thousand of them, but there is 300,000,000 Americans. One person or even a small group will be stopped cold immediately, but for a force of even 20,000,000 to be stopped is indeed a CAT OF ANOTHER COLOR, and it will in all probability have a number of “EXPENDED” GENERALS in the lead. When or if Soetoro decides to attempt to impose martial law upon peaceful citizens it is likely that he will discover his error very soon thereafter when his martial law has been unceremoniously shoved up his anus, by 20,000,000 armed vengeance seeking soldiers. IN WAR THERE IS NO LAW, ONLY that which comes at the hands of highly incensed citizens. My guess is the battle will be over quickly, but you can be sure the war from the PROGRESSIVES will NOT BE OVER. Such a conflict must be attacked at the EDUCATIONAL level beginning in the FIRST GRADE. The twisted bullshi# which is now being taught is a big part of our problem. When 20,000,000 angered citizens go to the boards of education in all states and tell the HEAD HONCHOS that we are going return to the educational values of the pre ww2 years, whether they like it or not, and if they don’t like it then they need to feel the size 12 of the people planted upon their backsides, at the exit of their plush offices. But If nobody does anything don’t look for any correction in the direction the country is headed. IT IS THE PEOPLE’S CHOICE!

  18. “In short, Katyal and Clement’s article lacks any critical research and reasoning and is nothing more than an attempt to convince the reader that Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen because they said so and the reader has to believe that because they were former heads of the Office of Solicitor General of the United States.”
    Attorney Mario Apuzzo

    Agreed. No discussion about the qualifications for Natural Born Citizen, written in 1790 by the founding fathers, can be made without the understanding of FRENCH law (not British common law). The Term was used, as explicitly different from Citizen, by the Founding Fathers. The question isn’t who is a “Natural Born Citizen” by Judicial advocacy now, but who was a “Natural Born Citizen” by founders intent and what Amendment to the Constitution has changed that meaning.

    As previously noted, and expressed on this blog, the founding fathers were Pro-French and Anti-British. This is obvious from historical accounts, historical letters, ongoing problems with the British (resulting in the war of 1812 from conscription of US citizens). The founding fathers all understood French. The authors of the Constitution all checked out from the New York Public Library (government library of the time) ‘Laws of Nations’ by Vattel. and it’s work is the ONLY work mentioned or cited in the US Constitution. When it comes to the definition of Natural Born Citizen, there can be NO historical doubt that it is a term and concept taken in 1790 from Vattel’s writtings. Of historical note, in 1790, British were not Citizens or referred to as such!! They were SUBJECTS (of the Crown).

    Harvard law review this time isn’t about law. The author’s don’t care about history or the Constitution. They care about covering their respective asses for the mistake called Barrack Obama, and ongoing and impending destruction that he has caused, based upon their advocacy. Few times in history, has so few a people, caused so much damage to so many, by legal advocacy of irrelevant laws and false history, as Harvard law.

    I may agree in principle with virtually all of Ted Cruz’s principles. I cannot argue that as a first act of becoming an Adult Ted Cruz denied his Canadian citizenship (so that he could only claim one country, and only one country could claim him). However, Ted Cruz needs to subject his birth to review for NBC status, as Citizenwells has suggested. You cannot save a Constitutional Republic by violating the Constitution.


  19. oldsoldier79


    Again, your thoughts have been my thoughts…..whatever course we take as a nation, it must be by the MAJORITY….

  20. oldsoldier79


    You too are correct my friend….we can’t save the baby simply by throwing out the bathwater……

  21. citizenwells

    Thanks Pete.
    Well put.

  22. Michelle Malkin

    Obama’s Alien Work Permit Jackpot

    Illegal aliens. Poorly vetted refugees and asylees from jihad-friendly countries. H-1B workers sent here to replace high-skilled Americans.

    Read how Obama is *bending over backwards* to fast-track employment documents for all of them…with support from Big Business GOP! ==>

    How is the White House sabotaging American workers? Let us count the ways.


  23. Notice the date.

    They knew then, what NBC meant , and sought to water it down!

    Foreign-Born President Amendment Sought
    Published November 30, 2004 Associated Press

    The nation’s forefathers envisioned a president born in the good ol’ U.S. of A.; a red, white and true-blue chief executive for when the band strikes up “Hail to the Chief.”

    In 1787, they put it in writing — Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution (search): “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president.”

    More than 200 years later, in a diverse nation with more than 33 million immigrants, the push is on to alter that venerable document and allow naturalized U.S. citizens — Americans like Arnold Schwarzenegger (search) from Thal, Austria, and Jennifer Granholm (search) from Vancouver, B.C., — to become president.

    The number of foreign-born in the United States is increasing at a rapid pace: more than 1 million a year between 2000 and 2004, according to a recent study. Those millions, however, aren’t the ones some proponents of the constitutional change have in mind.

    Think California Gov. Schwarzenegger. Perhaps Michigan Gov. Granholm.

    A Web site, Amendforarnold.com, promotes the effort with photos of the Austrian-born Schwarzenegger and a mention of the Canadian-born Granholm — “Amend for Arnold and Jen,” it proclaims. The same people who are sponsoring the Web site have bought ads on California television, hoping to create a groundswell of support.

    Several measures have been introduced in Congress, including a joint resolution by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, which proposes a constitutional amendment that would extend eligibility for the presidency to immigrants who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years.

    Schwarzenegger became a citizen in 1983, Granholm in 1980.

    Prohibiting foreign-born Americans from occupying the White House is “hard to justify in a nation where there are so many people who have become naturalized citizens,” said Mark V. Tushnet, a professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center.

    Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of State who was born in Czechoslovakia, recently backed amending the Constitution. “We are a country of immigrants,” she said. “I think that it would be not a bad thing to try to figure out how to allow foreign-born people to become president.”

    The odds are against proponents of the change, which would require two-thirds majority votes in the House and Senate, then approval by three-fourths of the states.

    Part of the problem, according to proponents, is a post-Sept. 11, 2001, climate in which many Americans are wary of immigrants, even legal ones, and want to tighten immigration laws.

    A recent CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll found that 67 percent opposed changing the Constitution to allow immigrants to be president. When half the poll sample was asked the same question with Schwarzenegger’s name, opposition dropped slightly to 58 percent.

    Proponents also must contend with the political impression that the nascent movement is being mounted for one Republican.

    “Democrats may be nervous putting in place a constitutional amendment that might have the immediate impact of promoting Governor Schwarzenegger’s candidacy,” Tushnet said.

    Also, Democrats, who saw President Bush increase his support among Hispanics in the 2004 election, might be loath to fight anything that boosts opportunities for immigrants.

    Tushnet said any Democratic reticence about Schwarzenegger could be dealt with by deferring the effective date of the change to 2012, similar to what Congress and the states did in 1951 when they ratified the 22nd Amendment but exempted President Truman from the limit of two terms.

    A deferred date, however, could cost the effort Republican support, especially among those in the GOP who dream of bodybuilder-actor-politician Schwarzenegger as commander in chief.

    Still, proponents remain optimistic that like the California recall effort that made Schwarzenegger governor, changing the Constitution might capture widespread public support.

    “I wouldn’t bet the mortgage against it, and I wouldn’t bet it for it,” Rohrabacher said in a telephone interview.

    Lissa Morgenthaler-Jones, former mutual fund manager behind the Amendforarnold Web site and ad campaign, said: “On an intellectual level, it’s virtually impossible. Intuitively, this is a no-brainer. You can feel a groundswell starting.”


  24. Mr. Wells,

    It is hard to believe that you would ignore the action for Declaratory Judgment and Injunction filed in Fla.

  25. citizenwells


  26. citizenwells

    From Citizen Wells November 24, 2008.

    “The state of Florida has a statute provision for challenging the “certification of election or nomination of any person to office…”.

    Florida Election statutes

    Title IX

    102.168 Contest of election.–
    “(1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

    (2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

    (3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:”

    “(b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.”

    Citizen Wells verified this statute with the office of the Secretary of State of Florida.

    Any takers for this challenge?

    Perhaps Bob Barr, who ran on the Libertarian Ticket in Florida will take this challenge. Consider this video of Mr. Barr speaking about constitutional concerns:”


  27. CW………
    ……….well said……..but sadly the people among us who should be the most informed, and enraged by what is going on are now the most ignorant of it, and care only about their own vices. I seriously doubt if many Americans even care about the eligibility of a potus candidate, but down the road they will indeed REGRET IT!

  28. ……….TODAY…..
    ……everything MUST BE “C-O-O-L, MAN”, OR IT IS NOTHING………IF THE ILLITERATE CROWD DON’T LIKE SOMEBODY THEY EITHER TRY TO DESTROY HIM/HER,OR THEY REFER TO THEM AS ….”MUF-FAS”. One thing is certain …..their moronic mentality is CLEARLY PLAIN TO SEE! These people are members of the group which America would normally depend upon to keep our country from going down the toilet……..as was the case in WW2, and the Korean war.

  29. Hi Pete…….
    ,………..great read…….but sadly IT is absolutely the LAST THING our OVEREDUCATED WORDSMITHS want to hear. Nice to hear from you! Always informative!

  30. While Bill Cosby is finally doing a long overdue perp walk for an alleged sexual assault some 10 years ago, and I say “long overdue” because dozens of woman claim he did the same to them over the decades, the dozen or so women who claim to be victims of Bill and Hillary Clinton are being victimized once again by a DC Media circling the wagons to protect Hillary, a woman they are desperate to see become president.


  31. Mr. Wells,

    An action was filed in Fla. (Declaratory Judgment/ Injunction)
    # CACE15022044

    I have posted it here twice.

    It is not a “contest of election” per Fla. statutes, but is an equity filing based on the fact that the plaintiff’s statutory right to challenge the eligibility of “any person nominated or elected to office” which does not provide a remedy for the fact that ineligible candidates will dilute and debase plaintiff’s right to vote, even if they do not win (which is the only time an “election contest” can be brought).
    See above.

  32. A time & place for all things.

  33. From a friend:

    “No more gun free zones. Only law abiding people adhere to the laws. It just creates an opportunity for a criminal with a gun to cause harm knowing it’s a “gun free” zone. Come on people, really?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s