Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
2017
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.


Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.









Saturday, November 27, 2010

It is time that the Birther lawyers start thinking like Lawyers, and not as bloggers when they petition the Courts

In October and November 2010, two petitions for writ of Certiorari were submitted to the US Supreme Court.  One was by Mario Apuzzo in November 2010

http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

and the other by Orly Taitz. in October 2010, the month preceding Apuzzo's 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39932523/Captain-Rhodes-Taitz-v-Colonel-MacDonald-Obama-et-al-United-States-Supreme-Court-Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-10-21-10

Both posed their opening questions very weakly, and so much so, that I personally view them as if they were written more like bloggers to a site Administrator than by lawyers to the US Supreme Court.  It really irks me that with all the time and information that is now known on Case law, as compared to this almost new field to most of us in 2008, that a better line of questioning wasn't done.

So in order to justify my criticism, and be constructive about it, I submit that these 6 questions in their entirety, or 6 of the same material substance and case citations, should have been the ones posed in the petitions of Apuzzo and Taitz to the US Supreme Court for Writs of Certiorari. I offer them for anyone in the future having Article III standing to sue Obama or an Obama appointee and Obama in the future, demanding he prove he even is US jus soli born, and has the right to be President via the US Constitution (which he always invokes in his Executive Orders), and demand the US Supreme Court uphold that a US Natural Born Citizen is and has been legally defined by the Courts as US soil born with a US Citizen Father at the time of birth.



"Birther" Challenge Questions to be posed to the US Supreme Court

1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948), a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law or not?


2. Is the requirement of presenting an identification of person, and proof of birth to follow 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62 Nguyen v. INS (2001) in which both hospital records of where born and witnesses to the birth, be a partial fulfillment of 333 US 640 @ 653, in which the Court would recognize such certification as rising to the level of a jus soli claim for High Federal Office?


3. Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.4. (now 2.1.5) in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole legience to the United States at birth?


4. Does a Natural Born legience follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child's father at birth or not?


5. Is the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 - 450 (1905), Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel -- even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) -on the definitions of the framers in using "natural born citizen" in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel?

6. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where "every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force" active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.4 (now Article 2.1.5)  "natural born citizen" clause or not?




-----------------------------------------------------------

Those are my 6 questions that I believe should be mandatory in filing "Birther" challenge cases against Obama in the US Supreme Court. 

In regard to question 4 above:

You will note in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 @ 330 (1939), that : "Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis."

In other words , the child , by both fact and de jure (by rule of Law), was born to a US citizen Father on US Soil at the time of birth in Perkins v. Elg in order to be called a Natural Born Citizen.

Obama has NO US CITIZEN Father, hence is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen...but a dual national born citizen, who does not even rise to the original intent of the 14th Amendment, as stated in Case law with the US Supreme Court, including Oral Argument observations like that made by Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg in the Oral Arguments of Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001).


[[[[[***** Update 11/29/2010  Kerchner v. Obama rejected.

There were some 265 other petitions of Certiorari that were denied along with Kerchner v. Obama.


On page 15 of the pdf. release, (see link below), it is stated that Kerchner v. Obama is denied. But compare. In other petitions of certiorari ff., a specific mention that: "Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf


That is NOT so with Kerchner. In other words, Kagan and Sotomayor were allowed to howl down and voice their opinions against Kerchner, and refused to recuse themselves, nor were asked to.


I understand how that Kerchner, not being drafted, nor directly affected specifically to injury did not have sufficient enough Article III standing to sue. I get that.

I also get that his questions were lame as compared to how they should have been posed, and how that they should have been posed more  like mine above. I get that.

But why did Kagan and Sotomayor not recuse themselves or be forced to recuse themselves?

On that technicality alone, there is cause to rechallenge and re-petition.

I would say that if somebody was groped at the Airport because Obama green-lighted the TSA (a US Government entity, and the policy implemented on his/Obama's watch by an Obama appointee who Obama executively approved of / appointed/ or was a direct result of his Administration coming to power), file a rape / sexual molestation charge against Obama, use and incorporate all 6 of the above questions into your other questions, and I can almost guarantee the US Supreme Court will issue the Writ of Mandamus on Obama. File in Washington DC, at the US Supreme Court level, and file the Writ of Mandamus first...then go for the Certiorari.  *****]]]]]

1 comment:

  1. SMR Strauss would like to object, citing "English common-law", the opinion of Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005), and the use of semantics while quoting Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, a comment made by Senator Orrin Hatch on OCTOBER 5, 2004, and a couple commentaries on the law by St. George Tucker and William Rawle.

    NONE of SMR's citations are Supreme Court de jure (by the law), failing to cite any Supreme Court Law Cases or offer any proof of authority, nor are able to take away from validity and de jure rulings of the Court, nor the judicial interpretation of "natural born citizen" as ruled upon by the US Supreme Court as always being through a US Citizen Father WITH a US jus soli birth...however, the objection by SMR Strauss is duly noted.

    ReplyDelete