Category Archives: U.S. Supreme Court

Montgomery Sibley US Supreme Court Application denied, May 3, 2016, DC madam phone list could impact 2016 presidential election, Ted Cruz listed in records?

Montgomery Sibley US Supreme Court Application denied, May 3, 2016, DC madam phone list could impact 2016 presidential election, Ted Cruz listed in records?

Montgomery Sibley US Supreme Court Application denied, May 3, 2016, DC madam phone list could impact 2016 presidential election, Ted Cruz listed in records?

 

The US Supreme Court has denied Montgomery Blair Sibley’s application to remove the stay on the DC Madam’s phone records.

No. 15A1016
Title:
Montgomery Blair Sibley, Applicant
v.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Docketed: April 1, 2016
Lower Ct: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
  Case Nos.: (1:07-cr-00046-RWR-1)

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mar 28 2016 Application (15A1016) for a stay, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Apr 4 2016 Application (15A1016) denied by The Chief Justice.
Apr 6 2016 Application (15A1016) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Apr 13 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 29, 2016.
Apr 13 2016 Application (15A1016) referred to the Court.
May 2 2016 Application (15A1016) denied by the Court.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles%5C15a1016.htm

Montgomery Sibley D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records update April 6, 2016, Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, Renewing Application with a second Justice, Clarence Thomas

Montgomery Sibley D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records update April 6, 2016, Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, Renewing Application with a second Justice, Clarence Thomas

“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

“COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate”…Drew Johnson, Twitter

 

From Montgomery Blair Sibley April 6, 2016.

“Yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts denied myApplication to be relieved from the Restraining Order which prohibits me from releasing any of the D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records.  This follows: (i) the refusal of the U.S. District Court to allow me to file a Motion to Modify that Restraining Order and (ii) the refusalof the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rule upon my Petition which sought to Order the District Court Clerk to file my Motion to Modify.

Before I simply release the records in my possession, I must exhaust all judicial remedies. Accordingly, invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, I am renewing the Application with a second Justice, the estimable Clarence Thomas.  I will wait to see what he says before taking my next step.”

Read more:

http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/

Renewed application to SCOTUS:

Click to access Clerk2a.pdf

Montgomery Blair Sibley US Supreme Court application for stay denied, April 5, 2016, DC Madam phone records to be released?, Sibley stated data could affect the 2016 presidential election

Montgomery Blair Sibley US Supreme Court application for stay denied, April 5, 2016, DC Madam phone records to be released?, Sibley stated data could affect the 2016 presidential election

“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

“COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate”…Drew Johnson, Twitter

 

From NBC News April 5, 2016.

“SCOTUS Denies Request from D.C. Madam’s Attorney to Release Info

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request from a lawyer who once represented a woman known as the “DC Madam” to release records from her famous escort service.

Those records include such sensitive information as customer names, Social Security numbers and addresses— information the lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, has said could affect the 2016 presidential election. The so-called DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey ran a high-priced escort service in the Washington D.C.-area for a number of years before her eventual conviction. She died in 2008.

Sibley wanted the Supreme Court to lift a lower court order, in place since 2007, that bars him from releasing any information about her records.

“Time is of the essence,” Sibley wrote in his latest Supreme Court filing.”

Read more:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/scotus-denies-request-dc-madam-s-attorney-release-info-n551121

 

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal opposition brief filed by Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel, Brief filed Feb 19 but does not show up on site, Fox guarding the hen house

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal opposition brief filed by Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel, Brief filed Feb 19 but does not show up on site, Fox guarding the hen house

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

More mysterious goin ons in the Rod Blagojevich prosecution and incarceration.

I don’t expect efficiency or accountability from government.

I see it on the local and national level.

If you follow Citizen Wells, you know that we follow closely the Blagojevich cases.

Friday, February 19, 2016 was the extended deadline for a response.

There was none listed on Friday or over the weekend.

Just checked this morning and found:

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.
Feb 19 2016 Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.

The brief is no where to be found.

http://www.justice.gov/osg/supreme-court-briefs

By the way, the US Solicitor General is Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel.

Think that might be a problem?

The fox guarding the hen house.

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.”

 

 

Blagojevich update US Supreme Court appeal, December 19, 2015, Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016, Not denied yet significant?

Blagojevich update US Supreme Court appeal, December 19, 2015, Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016, Not denied yet significant?

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

Rod Blagojevich attorney Len Goodman filed an appeal, petition for a writ of certiorari, with the US Supreme Court on November 17, 2015.

The SCOTUS then had a response indicated by December 21, 2015.

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)

This response has been extended to January 20, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-664.htm

The Blagojevich appeal has not been denied yet.

Is this significant?

Here are some cases that have been denied.

Click to access 121415zor_8n59.pdf

 

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be pruledassed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison

“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

 

 

Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court and courts in general have failed to do their duty.

Roberts has acted irrationally in his opinions regarding Obamacare.

Our courts have failed to do their duty in regard to clarifying what natural born citizen means and the eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

I was however pleased to see Justice Roberts step up to the plate with his dissent on the same sex marriage ruling.

When I heard the SCOTUS opinion I thought to myself how absurd.

A marriage contract is between 2 people and the state they get married in and the federal government has no damn business meddling in this.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the
past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered). Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J., dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent. Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the “right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.” There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”? The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or two. Even if history and precedent are not “the end” of these cases, ante, at 4, I would not “sweep away what has so long been settled” without showing greater respect for all that preceded us. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 8). “

From the Center for Immigration Studies June 23, 2015.

“The Supreme Court recently issued a decision in an immigration-related case Kerry, Secretary of State, et al. v. Din. The decision reaffirms that although people have the right to marry anyone they like, if the spouse is a foreigner, he or she has no intrinsic right to enter the United States when excludable under any of the grounds laid out by law.

To people like myself, it is one of the rare victories these days in an increasingly beleaguered national immigration system under peril from open borders advocates who persistently push the boundaries of sovereignty and common sense.”

“Despite the salutary outcome, there are several disturbing things about this case that merit mentioning:

  • First, of course, is that the 9-CCA ruled as it did. One sometimes wonders whether they ought to be impeached, en banc. Perhaps they could take up residence as appellate court judges somewhere else more appropriate to their extreme views? Like Venezuela.
  • Next, is that four of the nine Supreme Court justices also held that Din’s rights had been infringed because of her husband’s visa denial, and that she was somehow entitled to additional due process review because of it. Imagine the loophole that would have been caused but for one slim vote. Terrorists, narcotraffickers, and sundry other villains would be lining up to join the marriage fraud queue so that their spouses could avail themselves of their “constitutional right” to live in the United States with them.
  • Then there is the curious case of Din herself. She came to the United States as a refugee from Afghanistan in 2000 when the Taliban was in the full glory of its power, sheltering the likes of Osama bin Laden and conducting public maimings, stonings, and executions under Sharia law at the main soccer stadium in Kabul. But where did she find her husband? In Afghanistan, where she traveled in 2006. And whom did he work for? The Taliban, from whom she presumably sought refuge. Did none of this seem curious or anomalous to the folks at USCIS — the ones who had granted her the refugee status in the first place, who were adjudicating her petition for her spouse, and who could have, who should have, taken a second look at whether her refugee application was fraudulent instead of proceeding to naturalize her? Nah, apparently not.

Kind of disturbing to think that USCIS and courts like the Ninth Circuit are the thin line protecting us from terrorists seeking benefits to live in the United States.

http://www.cis.org/cadman/supreme-court-provides-win-sovereignty-security-and-common-sense

Ted Cruz Obama eligibility, Natural born citizens?, Cruz approval protects Obama, 1 US citizen parent, Language of constitution citizen parents, Cruz born in Canada, Obama born ???

Ted Cruz Obama eligibility, Natural born citizens?, Cruz approval protects Obama, 1 US citizen parent, Language of constitution citizen parents, Cruz born in Canada, Obama born ???

“The Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize America today….The Constitution has been tossed on the same trash pile as the Bible.”…Amazon description of Cheryl Chumley book “Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality”

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well…..In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.”…George Orwell “1984”

 

 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

We do not know where Obama was born.

There is zero proof that Obama was born in the US.

Cruz and Obama had 1 US citizen parent. That creates a problem with the natural born citizen requirement of the US Constitution.

Many of the Obama eligibilty challenges beginning in 2008 were based on a lack of a authentic birth certificate proving birth in the US. The image presented on WhiteHouse.gov, even if it came from Hawaii does not prove US birth.

Some of the eligibility challenges were based on the requirement of 2 US citizen parents and birth on US soil.

CDR Charles F. Kerchner filed a lawsuit against Obama on January 21, 2009.

“47. Hence, at the time of his birth on August 4, 1961, Obama was born to a U.S.
citizen mother but not a U.S. citizen father.
48. Under the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama therefore
cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Endnote 9.”

“9. The origins of the term “natural born Citizen’ and inclusion in the Constitution can be traced to a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington. This specifically speaks about the reason for requiring the President to be a “natural born Citizen.” It was believed that there would be less of a chance to have foreign influences put upon the President and Commander in Chief of our Army (military forces) if the person serving as the President is a “natural born citizen”, i.e., being born on U.S. soil and being second generation via both his parents also being U.S. citizens. There thus would be no claim on the President from any foreign power and he would have no relatively recent allegiance
and influence via family to a foreign power or from family living in a foreign country.
Being a “natural born citizen” dramatically reduces the likelihood of such foreign
influence. That is why John Jay, who was a major writer in The Federalist Papers which were critical in the ratification process of getting the Constitution approved, requested that the term be inserted into our Constitution. He was one of the founders who was very concerned about foreign influences being exerted on our new nation, especially on the President and Commander in Chief of the Army. He was not concerned about the loyalties of existing “original citizens” of the new country because they had openly fought for independence. And that is why the Article II grandfather clause is in there for them. But John Jay was very concerned about foreign influences on future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs. Thus he wrote the letter to General Washington. Washington
agreed and had the clause put in the Constitution and the delegates agreed and approved it and the “We the People” of those days voted for it and ratified it. And it can only be changed now by a new amendment by today’s “We the People.” Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This work was read not only by the Founding Fathers but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the general population. Jay frequently cited this treatise in his writings.
Additionally, the term “Law of Nations” is mentioned in the Constitution itself in Article I, Section 8 (defining piracy). There are also many references to The Law of Nations in The Federalist Papers, for the writers relied upon authors such as Vattel, among others.
The Journal of Legal History, Volume 23, Issue 2, August 2002, pages 107 – 128.”

H. Brooke Paige challenged Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen in the Vermont Supreme Court.

“Mr. Paige, for example was aware of the Venus Cranch case of 1814 in which Justice Livingstone quoted the entire 212nd paragraph of Vattel and stated:

“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…”

This contradicts the Vermont state attorney who attempted to marginalize Vattel’s description of natural born citizen and portray it as antiquated.”

https://citizenwells.com/2013/05/19/vermont-obama-eligibility-challenge-update-may-19-2013-h-brooke-paige-appeal-in-vt-supreme-court-awaiting-decisions-on-multiple-issues-obama-not-natural-born-citizen/

There are 2 important concepts from the above cases.

1. It was clearly understood at the time the Constitution was written that in this country natural born citizen meant a child born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents.

2. That the requirement of natural born citizen has not been changed by an amendment. You are being bombarded by misinformation about this law and that law affecting the natural born citizen requirement but nothing has changed it since the Constitution was ratified. This was noted in Hassan v FEC;

 “Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

From Mario Apuzzo:

“Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789″
“In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

https://citizenwells.com/2015/03/25/glenn-beck-comedy-show-wnd-media-lie-about-natural-born-citizen-and-constitution-citizens-not-eligible-ted-cruz-eligibilty-in-question-founder-and-historian-david-ramsay-defines-natural-born-citize/

You are being led to believe that “legal experts” are in agreement on the definition of natural born citizen (refer to numerous orwellian references at Citizen Wells)

That is simply not so!

John McCain had 2 US citizen parents.

However,

From the Michigan Law Review August 13, 2008.

Gabriel J. Chin, U of California, Davis, School of Law.

“Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.”

“II. Natural Born Citizenship as a Child of Citizens”

“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.”

“Since Senator McCain became a citizen in his eleventh month of life, he does not satisfy this criterion, is not a natural born citizen, and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President.”

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1157621

Media reports.

Here are 2 of the more honest reports:

From Time June 23, 2011.

“It’s equally strange to me that a nation that was forged through immigration — and is still formed by immigration — is also a nation that makes it constitutionally impossible for someone who was not physically born here to run for President. (Yes, the framers had their reasons for that, but those
reasons have long since vanished.)”

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445,00.html

Honest but stupid: “but those reasons have long since vanished.”

Wrong!

From PolitiFact May 9, 2013.

“Is Ted Cruz eligible under the Constitution to become president?”

“When discussing McCain, the CRS report draws on immigration law and says: “The uncertainty concerning the meaning of the natural-born qualification in the Constitution has provoked discussion from time to time, particularly when the possible presidential candidacy of citizens born abroad was under consideration. There has never been any authoritative adjudication.”

“So legally, the question is unsettled. Perhaps it will be if Cruz ever becomes a presidential contender.”

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/article/2013/may/09/ted-cruz-eligible-under-constitution-become-presid/

Something happened from 2013 to 2015.

Now Ted Cruz can be legally challenged on his natural born citizen status.

On  August 12, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote the following:

“Donald Trump, staunch birther: ‘Nobody knows’ yet where Obama was born”

“The two then discussed the birthplace of Sen. Ted Cruz, who’s been talked about as a potential GOP frontrunner for the White House in 2016. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada, which would make him ineligible for the office under the provisions of the Constitution.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/12/donald-trump-nobody-knows-yet-where-obama-was-born/

On March 24, 2015, Cheryl Chumley, writing for WND, wrote the following:

“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”
“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””
Read more:
Why did she leave out:
“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?
She left out 9 words.
9 very important words.
I can only think of one plausible answer.
The same conclusion you are arriving at.
 We are being bombarded with article after article stating that Ted Cruz is eligible to be president.

Why?

TO

PROTECT

OBAMA

 

 

 

 
media reports 2013 v now

H. Brooke Paige V State of Vermont petition for rehearing, June 13, 2014, Obama eligibility, US Supreme Court, Obama not natural born citizen, Question of eligibility not moot

H. Brooke Paige V State of Vermont petition for rehearing, June 13, 2014, Obama eligibility, US Supreme Court, Obama not natural born citizen, Question of eligibility not moot

“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

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

 

 

H. Brooke Paige has filed a motion for rehearing with the US Supreme Court.

“The election of President Barack Obama does not render the question of his eligibility moot. In addition to the authorities cited by petitioner in the petition for a writ of certiorari, these authorities also demonstrate that the passing of the election and that Mr. Obama will not run in the future does not render this case moot”

 

H. Brooke Paige V Vermont petition denied , May 19, 2014, Obama natural born citizen challenge, US Supreme Court, Courts and states continue to abrogate duties

H. Brooke Paige V Vermont petition denied , May 19, 2014, Obama natural born citizen challenge, US Supreme Court, Courts and states continue to abrogate duties

“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

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the
constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no
rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be
inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

“Regardless of how this plays out, we have ensconced in writing, on the internet and available for other legal reference and quotation, a document with well
researched dissenting opinions by the AL Chief Justice Moore and Justice Parker regarding the duties and responsibilities of state election officials.
Perhaps just as important is the mention of documentation provided by the Arpaio Zullo investigation raising serious questions about Obama birth
certificates.”…Citizen Wells, March 23 2014

 

Today, May 19, 2014, the US Supreme Court has once again abrogated their duty. They decided to not take on the appeal from the Vermont courts of H. Brooke Paige in Paige V Vermont. A challenge of Barack Obama’s natural born citizen status.

Sadly we have no functioning Supreme Court, no separation of powers.

No justice or justices.

More later.

Wells