Category Archives: Natural born citizen

Illinois Cruz Rubio ballot challenge update, February 1, 2016, Bill Graham confronts IL Board of Elections, Sworn oath to support the Constitution, Indiana Law Review state may exclude presidential candidate if not qualified

Illinois Cruz Rubio ballot challenge update, February 1, 2016, Bill Graham confronts IL Board of Elections, Sworn oath to support the Constitution, Indiana Law Review state may exclude presidential candidate if not qualified

“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

“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

 

 

Bill Graham has challenged Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio on their eligibility to be on the Illinois ballot as natural born citizens.

Here are more updates from Mr. Graham:

January 30, 2016 10:51 pm.

“Monday 10:30 I present to the IL Board of Elections that Rubio and Cruz lied in their Statement of Candidacy that they are NBC and qualified to serve as POTUS. The is fraud against the State. Hearing officer recommended Board deny my objections; legal counsel to Board concurred. I will make a brief statement that members would abandon their sworn oath to support the Constitution if they do not honor the Founders intent and Supreme Court rulings defining that NBC means born here to citizen parents. I regret that I may not be able to prevail, but pray the effort will get enough attention of the voters to make a difference in how they vote. Would be nice to have some patriots join me and Mr Joyce, who also raised an objection. State of Illinois building on Randolph, floor 14, suite 1400-100. Security check at ground level can take up to 30 minutes. Let’s keep up the fight to defend the Constitution!”
January 31, 2016 4:19 pm.

“IL Board Hearing officer said there are no particular restrictions in addressing the Board on Monday. I crafted two statements each ~1400 words. Cruz statement is focused on founders intent and responsibilities of the oath of Board Members to support constitution; Rubio is on these plus Wong Kim Ark and 14th Amendment. I claim a Board determination of NBC for either candidate is unlawful.”

From the Indiana Law Review:

“D. Whether a State May Refuse To Put a Presidential Candidate on the Ballot Because It Concludes the Candidate Is Not Qualified ”

” If a state chooses to evaluate the qualifications of presidential candidates, there is no inherent power of Congress standing in its way,”

“Just as there was historical precedent for states including unqualified candidates on the presidential ballot, so, too, is there precedent for states excluding unqualified candidates from the ballot. In fact, there has been a trend of state regulation increasingly scrutinizing the qualifications of presidential candidates, even apart from pending legislation in the “birther” context.”

“They arguably have the power to add qualifications to candidates seeking the office of President.359 The less intrusive step of examining existing constitutional qualifications is likely within the purview of state control.”

“The 20th Amendment does not prevent a state from excluding a presidential or a vice presidential candidate who is not qualified to hold the office.”

“A state inquiry into qualifications could take one of several forms.377 It might be simply ministerial, requiring candidates to verify that they are qualified. It could include a certification, such as a signature under penalty of perjury affirming that one meets the qualifications. It may require a low level of verification, such as an attachment of copies of documentary support for proof of residence and citizenship. Or it may require a high level of verification, such as original source documents (like a “long-form birth certificate”). The inquiry might be required as a disclosure when a candidate seeks to file for office, or as one that an election official is authorized to make under certain circumstances. Such state regulations would be permissible as long as they simultaneously existed within other constitutional boundaries.”

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11145&context=ilj

 

Trump will debate Ted Cruz when federal judge rules him eligible, Cruz is an arrogant fool for not addressing this earlier, Trump campaign manager sent message

Trump will debate Ted Cruz when federal judge rules him eligible, Cruz is an arrogant fool for not addressing this earlier, Trump campaign manager sent message

“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

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

 

 

Obama and Ted Cruz went to Harvard Law School.

That speaks volumes.

Ted Cruz should have gotten a ruling on his eligibiilty to be president as a natural born citizen many months ago.

Ted Cruz is an arrogant fool for not doing so.

From the Daily Mail January 29, 2016.

“Trump campaign manager to Ted Cruz: We’ll debate you one-on-one as soon as a judge says you’re eligible to be president!”

“Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Friday said his campaign will debate his closest rival for the party’s nomination head-to-head – but only if a federal judge says so.

Trump, the New York real estate tycoon who boycotted Thursday night’s presidential debate because of a long-running personal feud with one of the network’s reporters, signaled Friday that he would be happy to debate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

DailyMail.com asked Trump if he was serious about resisting Cruz until a court decides on his presidential electability.

‘Well, I think you’ve got a real problem. I think Cruz has a real problem… I would do that. I would absolutely do that. But they’ve got to rule. He’s got to go for a declaratory judgment,’ Trump said aboard his private jet on the tarmac in Des Moines, Iowa.”

“Trump went on to joke that he would debate Cruz in Canada – ‘to give him home-field advantage,’ before pledging to attend next Saturday’s Republican debate in Manchester, N.H.

But already Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, had dismissed Cruz’s proposal as nothing more than a ‘publicity stunt.’

‘What we’ve said to Ted Cruz: Go into court, seek a declaratory judgment to find out if you’re even legally eligible to run for president of the United States,’ he said Thursday in a Boston radio interview.

‘That’s the first thing. Once you’ve gotten that ruling from the federal judge and you’re the last man standing in this presidential contest next to Donald Trump, we’ll be happy to have a debate with you one-on-one, anywhere you want, because that’s the way the system works,’ Lewandowski said.

‘But, as it stands right now, we don’t even know if Ted Cruz is legally eligible to run for president of the United States.'”

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422990/Trump-campaign-manager-Ted-Cruz-ll-debate-one-one-soon-judge-says-eligible-president.html

 

MSN Trump overstates Cruz challenges, Really?, Media discredits Trump protects Obama Democrats, Illinois ballot challenges update January 28, 2016, MSN quotes obot site instead of Citizen Wells

MSN Trump overstates Cruz challenges, Really?, Media discredits Trump protects Obama Democrats, Illinois ballot challenges update January 28, 2016, MSN quotes obot site instead of Citizen Wells

“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

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

 

 

MSN and the media get a twofer on trying to discredit Donald Trump and prop up Ted Cruz on his eligibility.

The Obama and Democrat Party media would love for Cruz to get the nomination and then determine he is not eligible as a natural born citizen.

From MSN January 27, 2016.

“Trump Overstates Cruz Challenges

Donald Trump claims Illinois is “very seriously” looking at Sen. Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for president and “may not even let him run.” That’s misleading. Illinois is following routine procedures for resolving ballot challenges against five presidential candidates, including Cruz.

Trump made his claim on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” part of his ongoing campaign to cast doubt on Cruz’s eligibility to run for president. Cruz was born in Canada, but, as we have written before, he most likely qualifies to run because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born.

Trump, Jan. 24: I guess you probably heard last night Illinois is looking at it very seriously. They may not even let him run in Illinois. They feel strongly about it. But other states are looking at it very seriously. There’s a real question as to whether or not Ted Cruz is allowed to run for president.

Trump, a construction and casino mogul, is overplaying his hand. It is not unusual for candidates to have their nominating papers challenged.

The fact is, the Illinois Board of Elections has received objections regarding five major presidential candidates, and it is following its routine procedure for resolving petition challenges. In addition to Cruz, Illinois has received objections regarding the nominating papers filed by Sens. Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

Cruz’s case gained some national attention recently because the conservative website WND.com interviewed Lawrence Joyce, a licensed attorney who makes his living as a pharmacist and says he supports Ben Carson for president. Joyce makes the claim that Cruz is not a “natural born citizen,” a requirement to be president.

Joyce is one of two people who filed an objection against Cruz’s candidacy. The other is William K. Graham, who, in addition to challenging Cruz, is also challenging Rubio, who was born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time.

Jim Tenuto was appointed the hearing officer to handle the objections filed against Cruz and Rubio. Philip Krasny will oversee the objection filed against Clinton, and Barbara Goodman will handle the cases involving Sanders and O’Malley, according to the board. (See the Jan. 14 letter regarding to appointment of hearing officers on page 38.)

Tenuto, the assistant executive director of the board, said none of the five challenges have been resolved, according to a Jan. 23 article in the News-Gazette. “We just called the cases on Wednesday and they’re looking at holding a meeting on February 11, possibly, to see if we can resolve as many as possible,” Tenuto told the paper. As a result, early voting may not start as scheduled on Feb. 4, the paper said.”

Read more:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-overstates-cruz-challenges/ar-BBoGNXT

The article also mentions the H. Brooke Paige lawsuit in Vermont but links to a highly biased obot site instead of Citizen Wells where the Paige lawsuit was first reported.

Here are some updates on the Illinois ballot challenge from Mr. Bill Graham:

January 27, 2016 10:24 PM

“Additional comment that resolution of objections might delay Feb 4 start of early voting.”

January 28, 2016 11:07 AM

“This morning from IL Hearing Officer for Election Board
“My Recommendations will be transmitted today. The information as to the location and time of the meeting will be set in detail in the Notice to be attached to the Recommendation. It will inform you that the Board will meet on Monday, February 1, 2016, at 10:30 am You can attend either in the Chicago or Springfield offices of the Board. In Chicago, the Board will meet in Suite 14-100. ( next to where the case management conference was held). You will have an opportunity to address the Board prior to them voting on my Recommendation.””

January 28, 2016 1:41 PM

“IL Board to Rule Monday 2/1 that Cruz and Rubio are NBC

Recommendations do not reject solely on administrative grounds and say Board has authority to decide if candidate is qualified as NBC.

Says Minor is dicta and can be ignored. (Interesting to me that Wong Kim Ark opinion accepted Minor)

Hearing is Monday, suggestions are welcome. Five days to file appeal.

Issue of Board Member oath and validity of statement of candidacy is not addressed in recommendation; may be moot of Board agrees both are NBC.

Will bring to hearing 2009 book Cruz wrote forward to which says on p 115 you must be born in US.”

 

Ted Cruz forward US Constitution For Dummies, Book reveals Cruz not eligible as natural born citizen, US Supreme Court 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, Chief Justice Melville Fuller … were eligible to the presidency while children of our citizens born abroad were not

Ted Cruz forward US Constitution For Dummies, Book reveals Cruz not eligible as natural born citizen, US Supreme Court 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, Chief Justice Melville Fuller … were eligible to the presidency while children of our citizens born abroad were not

“It is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country . . . were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”…Chief Justice Melville Fuller, Wong Kim Ark

“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

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

 

 

Allegedly from a 2012 interview with Ted Cruz:

“In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)

Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”

Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”

Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.” ”

http://intellectualconservative.com/the-end-of-the-american-presidency/

Citizen Wells commenter and Illinois ballot challenger Bill Graham provided the following information last night.

http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Constitution-Dummies-Michael-Arnheim/dp/0764587803/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8#reader_0764587803

“Can’t make this stuff up. Did you know Cruz wrote the forward to this book by a non-lawyer Brit? The book does mention NBC qualification, born here of citizen parents on page 115. Of course Cruz could have written the forward without reading the book. On-line reviews are mediocre.”

From U.S. Constitution for Dummies by Michael Arnheim.

“The U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment”

“Defining Citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment”

“The birthright basis of U.S. citizenship was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898. This ruling was made in the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to Chinese noncitizen parents. The court decided that he was a U.S. citizen even though his parents were not.

Chief Justice Melville Fuller in his dissenting opinion in Wong’s case put his finger on a problem with the birthright rule: “It is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country . . . were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.””

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment.html

From the book:

“Foreword by Ted Cruz Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Former Solicitor General of Texas”

From the Forward:

““We the people” are the opening words of the U.S. Constitution, and it is fi tting that this book is written for “We the people.” Both the Constitution itself, and this book explaining it, were meant for everybody, for all of the American people. This book can be read on several different levels. If you just want to understand the basics of the Constitution, this book offers you an easy, enjoyable, and at times humorous way to do so.”

“For good or for ill, the meaning of the Constitution has often been very much in the hands of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“The Constitution is designed to limit government and to protect all the freedoms that you and I cherish as Americans. And this book is a clear, straightforward roadmap to understanding how it works — and a lot more.”

Mr. Graham also provided an update to his Illinois ballot challenge to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

January 26, 2016 5:30 PM.

“Filed today rebuttals to Memoranda of Law from Rubio and Cruz; all documents now with Hearing Officer. Today’s filing on Founders intent referred to Maskill’s CRS update 1-11-16 and on NBC definition to Mario Apuzzo 11-29-15 opinion on Minor and Wong Kim Ark.

Candidates claim anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen, even if they owe their citizenship to the 14th Amendment or Naturalization law. Even if their one or both parents have allegiance to another country. Founders wasted undivided allegiance.”

 

 

Graham v Cruz Graham v Rubio Illinois ballot challenge update January 21, 2016, Trump Carson and other challengers, IL stringent ballot access requirements, Will natural born citizen status matter?

Graham v Cruz Graham v Rubio Illinois ballot challenge update January 21, 2016, Trump Carson and other challengers, IL stringent ballot access requirements, Will natural born citizen status matter?

“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

“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

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

 

 

From Bill Graham,today January 22, 2016,  who has Challenged Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio being on the Illinois presidential ballot.

“Submitting Friday to IL State Board of Elections motions to reject motions to dismiss my objections to Rubio and Cruz Statements of Candidacy for IL General Primary 3/15. Each has certified they are legally qualified to serve as POTUS. Have low expectations but feel such efforts by citizens are necessary to preserve the Constitution.”

January 16, 2016.

“Objections to Rubio and Cruz Illinois filings posted at link. Objection was a letter attaching M Apuzzo opinion dated November 29, 2015 from his blog.

I received by US mail a notification these objections will be heard January 20 at 10:30 am, at SBE office in Springfield. I plan to call SBE Tuesday to confirm and inquire of procedures. Appeals of a decision must be filed within 5 days.

Given the corruption in IL, I expect them to be summarily dismissed. Probably could use some help with appeals.”

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

From BallotPedia:

“In order to get on the ballot in Illinois, a candidate for state or federal office must meet a variety of complex, state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements well in advance of primaries, caucuses and the general election.”

“Party candidates and independents

Established party candidates, new party candidates and independent candidates must file nomination papers with the Illinois State Board of Elections in order to qualify for the ballot. These nomination papers must be filed during the designated filing period. The filing period for established party candidates begins 106 days before the primary election and ends 113 days before the primary election. New party and independent candidates have a separate filing period. Their filing period begins 134 days before the general election and ends 141 days before the general election.[3][1]

Nomination papers include the following:[1]

  1. The Statement of Candidacy must contain the address, office sought and political party designation (if applicable) of the candidate; this form also includes a statement affirming that the candidate is qualified for the office sought, which must be signed by the candidate and notarized.[4]
  2. The original Receipt of Statement of Economic Interests must be filed with the Illinois Secretary of State, which will then issue the Receipt of the Statement of Economic Interests for the candidate to file with the Illinois State Board of Elections. This form is not required from candidates seeking federal office. It is suggested this form be filed at the same time as all other nomination papers, but it may be filed after the other papers as long as it is filed within the candidate filing period.[1]
  3. The loyalty oath form is optional. If a candidate chooses to sign it, he or she must affirm that he or she is not affiliated directly or indirectly with any organization that seeks to overthrow the government of the United States or the state of Illinois.[1][5]
  4. A petition containing the signatures of qualified electors. A candidate can begin circulating petitions 90 days before the last day of the filing period. Signature requirements for petitions vary according to the candidate’s political party affiliation and the office sought. Examples for signature requirements for new party candidate petitions can be found above under “Process to establish a political party.” Examples for signature requirements for established party candidates and independent candidates can be found in the tables below

Read more:

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_Illinois

From Politico January 12, 2016:

“John Kasich has hit a bit of a snag in preparing for Illinois’s Republican primary.

The Ohio governor and establishment Republican presidential candidate is in danger of not having the minimum number of signatures in six congressional districts, meaning he would lose out on picking up delegates in those districts.

Last week was the deadline for submitting signatures for the March 15 primary. And Wednesday is the final day to file petition objections, with a 5 p.m. deadline.

Republicans often run up against difficulties in Illinois, where some congressional districts are heavily Democratic and ballot access is particularly complicated. But a longstanding “gentlemen’s agreement” meant Republicans didn’t contest one another’s petitions in the state. That could change in this cycle.

There’s nothing compelling the state to verify signatures unless there is a challenge.:

Read more:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/john-kasich-illinois-ballot-217648#ixzz3y091Vw75

From The Guardian January 16, 2016.

“Donald Trump’s campaign tried to get his rival Republicans kicked off the ballot in Illinois – but the attempt failed when his state chair failed to bring duplicate copies of the required forms.

The Guardian has learned that on Wednesday, the last day for candidates to object to signatures submitted by rival campaigns to get on the ballot, chair Kent Gray showed up at the Illinois board of elections a few minutes before it closed. Illinois has some of the toughest ballot access laws in the country, and qualifying for the ballot requires gathering a different number of signatures in each of the state’s 18 congressional districts. Candidates often stumble trying to fulfill the state’s requirements; conservative challenger Rick Santorum faced major obstacles in 2012.

Approached by the Guardian, Gray referred all questions to campaign spokesman Hope Hicks, who said he “was not available” to the press. Hicks did not respond to follow-up questions from the Guardian.

State politicians have long had a “gentleman’s agreement” that candidates would not attempt to contest each other’s signatures and throw each other off the ballot. But challenging petition signatures as a form of political chicanery in the Land of Lincoln has a long history. Barack Obama first won election to the state senate in 1996 by successfully challenging the signatures of his incumbent opponent and getting her removed from the ballot.
It had been widely reported that the campaign of Governor John Kasich of Ohio, a vocal Trump critic, had problems gathering signatures in Illinois, and representatives of Kasich, along with the campaigns of Florida senator Marco Rubio and neurosurgeon Ben Carson, were monitoring for any objections from rival camps. It seemed that they had dodged a bullet until Gray walked in attempting to object to a number of candidates on the grounds that some of their signatures were invalid, although exactly who he focused on is unclear.”

Read more:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/14/trump-campaign-illinois-primary-attempt-kick-rivals-off-ballot

 

 

 

Vermont Cruz Rubio eligibility lawsuit update January 18, 2016, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio served summons and amended complaint, H. Brooke Paige hired process servers Baker Investigations

Vermont Cruz Rubio eligibility lawsuit update January 18, 2016, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio served summons and amended complaint, H. Brooke Paige hired process servers Baker Investigations

“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

“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

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

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Superior Court Judge Timothy Tomasi granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint. The State filed an opposition brief limited to the issue of the Motion for a TRO, they have yet to Answer the Verified Complaint and have
been given until January 26 to answer or be found in default. Plaintiff
filed his amended brief naming Cruz and Rubio as indispensable parties
since their Petitions and Consent Forms were confirmed by the Secretary of
State. ”

“Wednesday the Judge scheduled a hearing on the TRO for Friday the 15th. On Friday the Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendant’s Opposition Brief and the Hearing was attended by Plaintiff and State Defendants who had summoned the Director of Elections to testify. Substantive evidence was provided by the Plaintiff and confirmed under oath by the Director of Elections under cross-examination revealing numerous defects and errors in the process and procedures including counting signatures of many individuals who were not registered. In dozens of instances were not even residents (or inhabitants) of Vermont including the citizens of  CT, NY, NJ, MA and even FL who because the
Petitions were not labeled as for the Vermont Primary did not required the
signatories to certify that they were in fact registered Vermont voters.
Incredibly the Director of Elections testified that his office did not
believe they were required to confirm that the petition signatories were
on the voters rolls in Vermont, rather that they were only required to
determine that the signatures were legible and nothing more. Welcome to
Vermont’s Wild West of Elections where few care about the integrity of the
election process, in fact most probably do not even understand the
concept. In the end the Judge did not grant the TRO citing that the
public interest and concerns over voter disenfranchisement outweighed the
injury to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff will receive the Return of Service and
the executed Summonses on Tuesday for the new Defendants and will file
them with the Court that day, starting the 20 day clock for the new
Defendants to answer or otherwise file a response with the Court.”

Mr. Paige hired Baker Investigations and Process Servers to serve
the Summons and Amended Complaint on the out-of-state Defendants Cruz and
Rubio during their visit to Charleston SC in advance of their appearances
on the Fox Business News Republican Debate. Owner Elizabeth Baker
personally served both Cruz and Rubio on Wednesday January 13, as they
arrived in Charleston.

Photos courtesy of Baker Investigations and Process Servers.

PaigeSummonsCruz

PaigeSummonsRubio

According to Mr. Paige, Elizabeth Baker described the Rubio campaign folks as very accommodating and congenial while the Cruz folks were willing to
cooperate although they seemed less cordial and Boston lawyers contacted
the Plaintiff attempting to substitute “electronic service” for personal
service required by the Court.

Original complaint:

Ted Cruz Rubio and Jindal eligibility challenged in Vermont, H. Brooke Paige complaint filed December 9, 2015, Natural born citizen status requires US birth and 2 citizen parents, Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains founding fathers intent

Ted Cruz Harvard law professor Cruz not eligible, Born in Canada, Not natural born citizen, Laurence H. Tribe also Obama professor, I cannot support Ted Cruz and disregard for US Constitution, Many experts coming forward

Ted Cruz Harvard law professor Cruz not eligible, Born in Canada, Not natural born citizen, Laurence H. Tribe also Obama professor, I cannot support Ted Cruz and disregard for US Constitution, Many experts coming forward

“Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.”…constitutional law professor Mary Brigid McManamon

“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

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

 

I have liked Ted Cruz’s positions on many matters for years.

It does not matter to me how conservative he is, how popular he is and how much he protests that he is eligible.

I cannot support Ted Cruz and his untested arrogant position on his natural born citizen status.

I am certain that others agree with me.

He only makes Donald Trump look better.

And that is Trump, who questioned Obama’s eligibility.

Ted Cruz’s own Harvard Law Professor,  Laurence H. Tribe, is questioning his eligibility.

From the Boston Globe January 11, 2016.

By Laurence H. Tribe

“There’s more than meets the eye in the ongoing dustup over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as president, which under the Constitution comes down to whether he’s a “natural born citizen” despite his 1970 Canadian birth. Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is “settled” by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago. But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” is completely unsettled, as the most careful scholarship on the question has concluded. Needless to say, Cruz would never take Donald Trump’s advice to ask a court whether the Cruz definition is correct, because that would in effect confess doubt where Cruz claims there is certainty.

People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be. But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an “originalist,” one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption. 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.”

Read more:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/11/through-ted-cruz-constitutional-looking-glass/zvKE6qpF31q2RsvPO9nGoK/story.html

From Mary Brigid McManamon, constitutional law professor, January 12, 2016.

“Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

From Gabriel J. Chin at the Michigan Law Review 2009.

John McCain, with two US Citizen parents, has questionable status.

“A. Citizenship and Natural Born Citizenship by Statute

According to the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” Unless born in the United States, a person “can only become a citizen by being naturalized . . . by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens . . . .” A person granted citizenship by birth outside the United States to citizen parents is naturalized at birth; he or she is both a citizen by birth and a naturalized citizen. This last point is discussed thoroughly in Jill A. Pryor’s 1988 note in the Yale Law Journal, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty.

The Supreme Court holds that the citizenship statutes are exclusive; there is no residual common-law or natural-law citizenship. Citizens have no constitutional right to transmit their citizenship to children. In Rogers, the Supreme Court upheld a statute requiring children born overseas to citizen parents to reside in the United States to retain their citizenship. Since “Congress may withhold citizenship from persons” born overseas to citizen parents or “deny [them] citizenship outright,” it could impose the lesser burden of requiring U.S. residence to retain citizenship.

Congressional power to withhold citizenship from children of U.S. citizens is not hypothetical; for decades, it was law, and to some extent still is. The Tribe-Olson Opinion proposes that “[i]t goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States . . . .” However, the Seventh Congress, which included Framers Gouverneur Morris and Abraham Baldwin among others, did precisely that. In 1961 in Montana v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court construed an 1802 statute to mean that “[f]oreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens . . . .” Thus, children of members of the armed forces serving overseas, and diplomats and civil servants in foreign posts, were not only not natural born citizens eligible to be president, they were not citizens at all.

Denial of automatic citizenship had very different implications than it would now because until the late nineteenth century, there was little federal immigration law. There were no general federal restrictions on who could enter the country, no provisions for deportation of residents who became undesirable, and immigration officials to deport them. Of course, these children could become citizens by individual naturalization. But even if the child suffered based on lack of citizenship, according to the 1907 Supreme Court decision in Zartarian v. Billings, “[a]s this subject is entirely within congressional control, the matter must rest there; it is only for the courts to apply the law as they find it.””

Available at the Wayback Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20091007052748/http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-senator-john-mccain-cannot-be-president-eleven-months-and-a-hundred-yards-short-of-citizenship

And Citizen Wells January 13, 2011.

Speaker Boehner and congress, Legal experts speak out, Obama eligibility, Obama issues

If Ted Cruz want my and others’ support he must do the following:

Apologize to the American people for his arrogance and disregard for the US Constitution.

Immediately seek a ruling from the courts or advisory opinion from the FEC.

Citizen Wells