Joyce and Graham Illinois ballot challenges overruled, February 1, 2016, IL state board of elections, Appeals next?, What was their basis in law for stating Cruz is a natural born citizen?

Joyce and Graham Illinois ballot challenges overruled, February 1, 2016, IL state board of elections, Appeals next?, What was their basis in law for stating Cruz is a natural born citizen?

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

***  Update Feb 1, 2016 5:55 PM  ***

IL State board response (thanks to commenter 4zoltan)

http://www.elections.state.il.us/Downloads/AboutTheBoard/PDF/02_01_16SOEBAgenda.pdf

***

Bill Graham contacted Citizen Wells today with the results of his Illinois ballot challenge to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

February 1, 2016 1:33 PM.

“IL Election Board voted unanimously that Cruz and Rubio are NBC and rejected objections of Joyce (Cruz) and Graham (Cruz, Rubio)
Let’s keep up the pressure whenever we see the opportunity.”

From the IL state board of elections website:

“GRAHAM V CRUZ TED CRUZ PRESIDENT 1/8/2016 2:40 PM OVERRULED
GRAHAM V RUBIO MARCO RUBIO PRESIDENT 1/8/2016 2:40 PM OVERRULED”

Attorney Lawrence J. Joyce also had his challenge denied.

“JOYCE V CRUZ TED CRUZ PRESIDENT 1/6/2016 4:06 PM OVERRULED”

https://www.elections.il.gov/ElectionInformation/LatestObjections.aspx?id=50&pageindex=0

Will these decisions be appealed?

From WND January 22, 2016.

“A Republican attorney in Illinois, a supporter of Ben Carson, on Friday filed a motion with the Illinois State Board of Elections to have Sen. Ted Cruz’s name removed from the official Republican primary ballot for the Illinois GOP presidential primary set for March 15.

The legal challenge confirms fellow candidate Donald Trump’s argument that the issue of eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution will dog Cruz as the Texas senator pursues the GOP nomination for president, and possibly a subsequent White House bid.

The motion from Lawrence J. Joyce, who makes his living as a pharmacist licensed in his state, notes that Cruz was born on Dec. 22, 1970, in the city of Calgary, in the Canadian province of Alberta, and that Cruz has been a citizen of the United States continuously since birth under § 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401.

But Joyce’s motion challenges that Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, and as a result not eligible to be president.

The ‘nightmare scenario’

“I have principally two reasons for doing this,” Joyce explained to WND in an email. “First, I think Dr. Carson would make both a better president of the United States and a better nominee of the Republican Party.

“Second, I am terrified that if we don’t get this cleared up right now, if Ted Cruz does become the nominee, the Democrats will cherry-pick which court or election board they will petition to have him declared to be ineligible in September or October,” Joyce continued.

“The result could be that the Democrats may chalk up a string of three or four or five victories [in their election board petitions] in a row, potentially forcing Cruz to resign the nomination (if for no other reason than that fund raising would quickly dry up),” Joyce explained.

“Then Mr. [Karl] Rove and company would hand-pick his replacement as the nominee,” he concluded.”

Read more:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/motion-demands-cruz-be-removed-from-illinois-ballot/

 

Advertisements

35 responses to “Joyce and Graham Illinois ballot challenges overruled, February 1, 2016, IL state board of elections, Appeals next?, What was their basis in law for stating Cruz is a natural born citizen?

  1. Appeal example:

    “Julie Schmidt of Elgin filed an appeal to last week’s Illinois State Board of Elections decision that 43rd District State Rep. Anna Moeller be allowed to stay on the March 15 Democratic primary to retain her seat.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/elgin-courier-news/news/ct-ecn-elgin-moeller-appeal-st-0114-20160113-story.html

  2. Bill G.
    They just voted & did not explain the basis for their decision?

  3. Thanks 4zoltan!

  4. CW………
    ………..I serious doubts that the reasoning of the board was reasoning founded in our Constitutional requiem. I believe case law reasoning was bent to fit the objection. Somehow we need to force the SCOTUS to rule on NBC. Personally I still adhere to the( 2 parent US Soil) dicta.

  5. ……….so once again we see the WORDSMITHS at work.

  6. FURTHER……..
    ……..a few weeks ago Mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Lynch made a statement wherein she remarked that “Finally we can now utilize case law to interpret the Constitution………..and in effect she really said NOW WE CAN MAKE THE CONSTITUTION MEAN WHAT WE WANT IT TO MEAN.

  7. ……..it is going to be a very long, and very painful fight to get back our country……….if we do at all. America has been hijacked by a criminal organization which pales the Italian Mafia……..which for many decades controlled New York lock stock and barrel. Now it is expanded to include America.

  8. One board member twice mentioned his feeling that the NBC was Federal and not in the Board’s purview. But the Hearing Examiner recommendation endorsed by Board legal counsel, concluded that Rubio and Cruz were NBC. My objection did not ask they rule on meaning of NBC, but they did anyway. Surprising to me because they had no document, evidence or testimony on which to make such rulings. They could have rejected my objections on administrative grounds but chose to offer an opinion on NBC and also reject it on that basis. They say any person who gains citizenship under the INA of 1952 at birth, is NBC. SCOTUS has never so ruled. Have 5 days to file appeal and have not made a decision. Was just interviewed/recorded by reporter from IL Public Radio.

  9. BillG
    do you have any plans to take your case to the appellate court?

  10. HERE’S THE HISTORY OF ALL ‘TYPICAL’ POLITICIANS….ALL

  11. oldsoldier79 | February 1, 2016 at 8:49 pm |
    ========================
    That is the absolute best post you ever made here!

  12. oldsoldier79 | February 1, 2016 at 11:10 am |
    And, in 1790, Congress passed a law stating that “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.” It didn’t specify which parent, mother or father or both, but the background principle of “jus sanguinis” leads to the conclusion that it referred to American fathers.

    The 1790 statute, however, WAS NOT intended to address presidential eligibility. Rather, like earlier English statutes that referred to “natural born subjects,” it exempted children born abroad from the need to follow any other procedures (“to naturalize”) in order to be considered citizens.
    ====================================
    That 1790 law was brought to my attention a while back.

    Here’s the law…….
    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
    http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

    If you read it carefully you will see that the quote was taken out of context. . The law pertains ONLY to naturalized citizens and their offspring. It declares that the children of naturalized citizens are “natural born citizens” even if they were born on foreign land. Also read on the same site…….

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

    In 1795, Congress repealed the 1790 law and declared that the children of naturalized citizens “shall be considered Citizens of the U.S.” but it omits the words “natural born citizens”

    Now why did Congress repeal the first law? Because they erroneously declared these foreign born children of naturalized citizens were “natural born citizens”. It is my understanding that natural born citizenship is a birthright, a heritage, bestowed upon children AT BIRTH because of the parent’s American citizenship. It can NOT be granted at some later date. Congress realized their error and made a correction, omitting “natural born” and declaring that these children of naturalized citizens shall be considered as “CITIZENS” of the United States.

    A naturalized citizen is an alien who has applied for American citizenship and completed the naturalization process. This could take years to complete. A native born citizen was born in the United States. Here’s a WWI draft registration that uses this terminology. Section 12 reflects the 1795 naturalization law.

    World War I Draft Registration Card C
    http://c.ancestry.com/pdf/trees/charts/DraftCardC.pdf

  13. Iowa caucus
    Last updated Feb 2, 2016 at 12:49 AM
    REPUBLICAN

    Feb 1
    99% reporting Delegates Vote %
    Cruz (won)
    8 27.7%
    Trump
    7 24.3%
    Rubio
    7 23.1%
    Carson
    3 9.3%
    Paul
    1 4.5%
    Bush
    1 2.8%
    Fiorina
    0 1.9%
    Kasich
    0 1.9%
    Huckabee
    0 1.8%
    Christie
    0 1.8%
    Santorum
    0 1%
    Gilmore
    0 0%
    ________________________________________
    Source: AP
    Feedback

    ________________________________________

  14. Iowa caucus
    Last updated Feb 2, 2016 at 3:18 AM

    DEMOCRATIC
    Feb 1
    99% reporting Delegates Vote %
    Clinton
    22 49.9%
    Sanders
    21 49.5%
    O’Malley
    0 0.6%
    ________________________________________
    Source: AP

    Hardly a resounding victory for slick Willamina.

  15. Historical moment.
    Both Iowa winners on the precipice of legal action taken against them.

  16. Bill G.
    Of course you know that you & Joyce have standing now.
    Perhaps one or both of you can get this into the courts to challenge NBC based on their interpretation.

  17. “John Cleese says political correctness has gone too far, especially on America’s college campuses, where he will no longer go to perform. As BigThink reports, the very essence of his trade — comedy — is criticism and that not infrequently means hurt feelings. But protecting everyone from negative emotion all the time is not only impractical (one can’t control the feelings of another), but also improper in a free society.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-01/john-cleese-political-correctness-will-lead-orwellian-nightmare

  18. “If you start to say we mustn’t, we mustn’t criticize or offend them then humor is gone. With humor goes a sense of proportion. And then as far as I’m concerned you’re living in 1984.”…John Cleese

  19. CW……….
    ………..I would hasten to add to what John Cleese had to say with the words….”enhanced by our Hollywood PRETEND LAND”. I believe that American youth want to live a PRETEND LIFE where birds fly over the rainbow, and apples fall from the ground up to the tree. It is becoming very clear that a huge cross section of our young people believe that they would enjoy living a Socialist life style. Our youngsters are very badly misguided, with Hollywood FANTASIES. When you try to correct them they become offended. So I would conclude that if you raise a child to believe that FANTASY is TRUTH, then it is clear that the root of the problem is the PARENTS.
    In examining Bernie Sanders supporters they seem to be a huge cross section of our misguided young people. Hillary Clinton is also an advocate of Socialism. Further I believe that if Ted Cruz is nominated by the GOP he will LOSE the election to the LIBERAL LOONIES. There is a helluva lot of liberal minded YOUNG PEOPLE, and YUPPIES out there and defeating such people will not be easy. ………particularly when we have a potential 11 million illegals who will have the right to vote before the 2016 election. Cruz champions these people. He has already demonstrated that at least one state government is willing to LIE, and TWIST WORDS for him.

  20. Dr. Carson…was on Fox this morning and he said that the Cruz people tricked his people that he Dr. Carson had dropped out and he feels that a lot of his votes went to Cruz???? Check it out!

  21. THE MORAL OF THE STORY………DON’T SCREW WITH MOMMY !

    The teacher gave her fifth grade class an assignment: Get their parents to tell them a story with a moral at the end of it.

    —The next day, the kids came back and, one by one, began to tell their stories.

    There were all the regular types of stuff: Spilled milk and pennies saved. But then the teacher realized, that only Janie was left.

    “Janie, do you have a story to share?”

    “Yes ma’am. My daddy told me a story about my Mommy. She was a Marine pilot in Desert Storm, and her plane got hit. She had to bail out over enemy territory, and all she had was a flask of whiskey, a pistol, and a survival knife.

    She drank the whiskey on the way down so the bottle wouldn’t break, and then she parachuted right into the middle of 20 Iraqi troops……..

    She shot 15 of them with the pistol, until she ran out of bullets, killed four more with the knife, till the blade broke, and then she killed the last Iraqi with her bare hands.”

    ”Good Heavens, ‘said the horrified teacher. What did your Daddy tell you was the moral to this horrible story’?”

    ….”Don’t Screw with Mommy when she’s been drinking.”

    ….I love these touching feel good stories !!!

  22. Ginger…..
    ……….such a trick would not surprise me when there is somebody who is perceived as weak.
    Hope you were able to get your transcriptions done successfully. Have a great day!

  23. oldsoldier79……….
    …….with respect to female in combat, an American general allegedly once said ” he would love to have an entire division of fighting females, but particularly if they all had PMS on the same day.

  24. he also said NONE OF THE ENEMY WOULD SURVIVE.! har har

  25. JONAH…..

    Now my friend, I think you are taking things out of context…

    Here is your quote; “The law pertains ONLY to ‘naturalized citizens’ and their offspring. It declares that the children of naturalized citizens are “natural-born citizens” even if they were born on foreign land.”

    Please not it said… “CITIZENS”…not “CITIZEN”….”citizens” means both PARENTS…..whereas “citizen” means only ONE parent……

    The law did not say ONE parent…the law said BOTH parents……

    TED CRUZ was born in CALGARY, CANADA IN 1970 to an AMERICAN mother and a CUBAN father (who was NEVER a US citizen)…. unless CRUZ can produce documents which shows that he has DENOUNCED his Canadian citizenship, he is still a DUEL CITIZEN of both the United States and Canada. I have seen no such documents,….. have you?

    Now here is EXACTLY what that law of 1790 said THAT YOU QUOTED ME….word for word.

    ” United States Congress,
    “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any ALIEN being a free white person ( Now did that word exclude Barack H Obama?, if you want to use this 1790 law as proof of eligibility it did)) , who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years( Barack H Obama’s reported father never lived in the US and neither did TED Cruz’s dad) , may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon “such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States”. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”…..

    This is the LAW,…. word for word.

    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:

    Provided, that the right of citizenship SHALL NOT descend to persons whose fathers “HAVE NEVER BEEN” a resident in the United States:

    Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”

    Now….TED CRUZ’s father DOES NOT meet any of the qualifications noted in this LAW…..period.

    THEREFORE, let it be known here and wide that, Raphael Ted Cruz …IS NOT a “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” …period !…. and that’s according to ‘any way you cut the pie’.

    I can assure you the citizenship status of TED CRUZ will be challenged in a court of law perhaps by both parties, because by legal definition RAPHAEL TED CRUZ is still a duel citizen of both CANADA and the UNITED STATES and also because TED CRUZ is not a “natural-born citizen” as defined by ANY US law.

    Now good old Raphael ( that’s his real name ) can scream and cry all he wants, He DOES NOT meet the CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS to be president of these United States according to the Constitution……and neither does Marco Rubio, who followed a similar pattern to citizenship !

    So, if the Constitution of the United States means anything to you, me, or any other citizen of this country, we must recognize these facts and not try to READ INTO that document what we want it to say……and we, as citizens, must insist that every person seeking public office in this country strictly abide by the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND…….our Constitution..

    Jonah……I think we are “beating a dead horse ” to death here,…

    What say you?

  26. oldsoldier79……….
    ……….was the 1790 law superceded by the 1795 correction? Could the alleged correction to the 1790 law actually be another mistake of Congress?

  27. OLDSAILOR83…..

    let me take a real close look at that…..be right back….

  28. oldsoldier79……..
    ……….I seem to remember reading that Cruz had formally SURRENDERED his Canadian Citizenship, but I am not sure if that applies here, because he allegedly only recently took that action. But it seems as though renouncing his Canadian Citizenship would not have changed the fact that his father was never a US CITIZEN……..which by itself renders him ineligible. That is my take on the subject…….right ,wrong, or indifferent!

  29. Jonah………
    ………….I believe that you are right about the “BIRTHRIGHT” Citizenship issue. I too believe that this is in fact how NBC is conferred. However(in Soetoro’s case) his mother was UNDERAGED and at that time could not confer any form of legality to Lil Barry. If you remember, 21 years of age was legal age of LIABILITY in 1961. Minors cannot confer any form of legality to their offspring………and they become BASTARDS.

  30. BUT……..
    ………in the birthright requiem, he would only have been a citizen, but not a NBC. that is if he was born in the US at all. I personally believe that the CERTIFIED COPY of the Kenyan BC which was acquired by Smith, is in fact the true BC of Barrack H Obama. But when he was born his mother was not yet even 18. While I don’t know about the prevailing laws of the British Protectorate at the time, it would seem to me that their law would probably be similar. So in reality he actually had no birthright to US citizenship of America conferred to him. That is primarily why I believe that Soetoro is NOT EVEN A US CITIZEN AT ALL.

  31. AND……….
    NEVER HAS BEEN! HIS PHONEY Hawaii Certificate of Live birth, remains an illegally MANUFACTURED DOCUMENT, and not worth the paper it is printed on. If he had a valid Hawaii BC it would be a PHOTOSTATIC copy just as was the BCs of the twins.

  32. oldsailor83…..

    Here is the 1795 Naturalization Law as it was written…..

    “United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

    For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

    SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: —

    First…. and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.

    Secondly…. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

    Thirdly…. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

    Fourthly…. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

    SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

    SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

    SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

    ———————————————————————————————

    NO WHERE…and I repeat NO WHERE in this revised version of the Naturalization Law of 1795, which supersedes and makes null/void, the Naturalization Law of 1790 is the word “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” mentioned……not one time is that word written.

    This 1795 naturalization law which took the place of the 1790 law talks ONLY about “naturalization” of a person to become a citizen” and says NOTHING about being a “natural-born citizen”, or what a natural-born citizen is, or is not….

    So therefore, I find it impossible to accept this 1795 law as a means to prove a person to be a “natural-born citizen”…..it does however lay the ground work to describe what a “citizen” and a “naturalized citizen” is…

    Please read carefully Section 1, #1 closely…

    “It says that “He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to RENOUNCE forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, STATE, or SOVEREIGNTY whatever, ……..”

    Note those last two words…..to me, that means anyone applying for naturalization CANNOT have loyalty to another country…so how can anyone have a DUEL citizenship, and at the same time claim citizenship in the United States…… if this Law is still in effect?

    NOTE:…this law was superseded by the Naturalization Law of 1802, but as far as I can tell, it does not effect anything I have written herein. The Naturalization Law was changed again in 1870 when US Grant was president, but again I find nothing to counter what I have written above.

    If we follow the dictates of the law, and if this law is still in active, that means that Raphael Ted Cruz cannot possibly be a “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” under any stretch of imagination, but he is instead, a ‘NATURALIZED CITIZEN’ if his parents followed the requirements laid out in this law….and if he renounced his CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP which he was born under…otherwise, Cruz may not even be a citizen…..period.

    Much like the POS we now have in the White House…….

    I hope this has answered some of your questions…….I am not a lawyer, but i can read most laws without having someone tell me what they say.

  33. oldsoldier79………
    ………now you know why I have often stated that I think the POS we now have is NOT EVEN A US CITIZEN AT ALL………particularly if he was born in Kenya, which was then governed by the British Protectorate. He is in fact a CITIZEN OF Britain, because everyone born during the OCCUPATION by Britain legally became British subjects.(Citizens). I have never read or observed any documents wherein Soetoro legally surrendered his British citizenship. This does not expire on it’s own. It is a specific legal action just as is that of Canada. But because his father was a British citizen this was ALLEGEDLY conferred upon him by his father’s blood, but NOT BY HIS UNDERAGED MOTHER. Since he was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, this makes the scenario that he then became a legal Citizen of Indonesia. Therefore any allegiance he had to Britain could have, and might well have become MOOT. But at NO POINT has he any birthright citizenship to the US. that anyone has been able to determine for sure. If it cannot be determined after reasonable search has been done then the probability exists that he is NOT A US CITIZEN, nor is he a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN……again there is NO LEGALLY VALID BC which exists for Soetoro. Therein lies one reason why he could not pursue a legally valid name change. At the time of filing the petition for name change a CERTIFIED COPY of a legally valid BC must accompany the petition when filed with the clerk of the Superior Court. Most of the foregoing also applies to Cruz, and Rubio as well.

  34. FURTHER……..
    ……….he cannot be legally married to Michael, and for the HE/SHE wife be legally conferred the married surname of Obama. The Obama surname is in LEGAL LIMBO, because of the Soetoro ADOPTION, and the surname of Obama cannot be legally used as such until the surname of Obama is legally re instated via a legally adjudicated name change. This is also a basic component of the fraudulent election……….as POTUS his name needed to legally be Obama, but it was not the case………he is still legally Barry Soetoro…..thus he was ILLEGALLY ELECTED, and ILLEGALLY CERTIFIED by the various boards of election in EVERY STATE. They are now all accessories to election fraud.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s