A review of Chester A. Arthur, the Arthur "social justice" excuse cited by Ankeny v. Daniels, and an apparently missed opportunity in Keyes v. Bowen to nail Obama via Dick Cheney's failure to perform VP functionary obligations

In reading the testimonial letters of A.P. Hinman’s inquiry

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States

 into where Chester A. Arthur was born, it appears to me that the best likelihood and short summary of the same might be something along these lines:

1. That Chester A. Arthur was most likely  born in Meg’s Corner of Dunham Flats, in Missiqua County, located just inside the nationality and sovereignty of Quebec, Canada; and bordering Vermont. (pp. 38, 41, 52, 58-59).

2. Chester A. Arthur is alleged to himself have given two differing birthplaces of origin in his US Army enlistment and US Army reenlistment papers. (p.87). However, at the time of publication, the charge was as yet unconfirmed, and material evidence (documents) as yet not presented as substantiation.

3. Chester A. Arthur was enrolled in college and testified by himself and his family to be the age of 16 (the very bare minimum allowable age) to College Administration on paperwork they signed on September 05, 1845. Chester A. Arthur graduated as a lawyer in 1848. (pp. 80-81).

This makes Chester A. Arthur’s birth to have been dated to September 06, 1828 to September 05, 1829. The date is extremely significant as it was at the same time that C.A. Arthur’s family resided in Canada, prior to confirmed US residencies from 1831 ff.   Oddly enough, on the very day he enrolled, it appears that both Chester's father and Chester himself presented that the college enrollment was occurring on Chester's 16th birthday...and who would disbelieve an alleged preacher of the Gospel in good standing from such a claim?

4. About 9 years after declaring himself to be 16 years old, at about age 25 – then, lawyer Chester A. Arthur (of almost 6 years since graduation) did so commit perjury with intent to defraud. He had an affidavit drawn up and presented to a US Court of Law that he was age 21 in May of 1854. (p. 82).

This would now make his claim that he was born in 1833, when the family was certainly in the US for more than a year and a half, and remained thereafter…but it also laid claim that he was but 12 upon entering a college with a bare minimum age of 16 as its requirements, and that for 3 years he and his parents and his churches and his father’s school administrator’s either kept silent on the matter or actively helped Chester fool everyone, so that Chester graduated at the age of 15. This is highly unrealistic. No, the fraud appears to have been singly done by C.A. Arthur in May of 1854, when he lied to the courts, and manufactured his age in order to claim a short-cutted and illegal acquiring of a US citizenship. And the fact that most historians have accepted his birth as 09/05/1829, demonstrates a great likelihod that he was better than 50% likely born elsewhere than Vermont as is the official claim.

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

In the Indiana case of Ankeny v. Daniels,  released November 12, 2009
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903
they simply cite a book about this likelihood as their excuse to let an illegal Barack Obama be President, as if "social justice"...if the Republicans can have an illegal and non-nbc president, then we choose to look the other way, was essential one of their arguments.

 “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.


… We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES, GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4 (1975).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s grant of the Governor’s motion to dismiss.”

In short, because another President may have illegally obtained the office in 1881, being born to a father who was not a United States Citizen by naturalization by the time Chester A. Arthur reached age 21 (per a statute in effect from 1802 until 1855 A.D.)…we the court decide that Obama has the social justice right to illegally usurp the Presidency, so as to balance out the historical scales of both Republican and Democrat Party corruption of the office of the US Presidency? Really?

When viewed in its proper context, we see that decision by the Court of Indiana in Ankeny v. Daniels is irrelevant in regard to its take it or leave it opinion that other Appellate Courts and Jurisdictions may or may not accept and cite, or reference, in making their decision. Ankeny v. Daniels (as well as other Court of Appeals and Circuit Court Opinions and rulings)  is de facto NATIONALLY NON-BINDING until it is upheld and taken by the US Supreme Court.


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

In a recent ruling from Keyes v. Bowen, released October 25, 2010,
 the Appeals Court de facto ruled that State Electors and the Secretary of State not only have no obligation to oppose an illegal candidate for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency of the United States, but that they also do not have the right to stop an illegal candidate of any kind on the ballot except if there are two candidates from the same state for President and Vice-President on the ticket.  Or so the Court of Apeals Justices Scotland, Sims, and Robie so claim.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C062321.PDF

In order for the lay reader to better understand, I will present a resummarization of the original decision available at the link above.

1. The California Election Code § 6906
    http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/getcode.html?file=./elec/06001-07000/6900-6909
states that: the electors designated for the State of California “shall vote by ballot for that person for President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are, respectively, the candidates of the political party which they represent, one of whom, at least, is not an inhabitant of this state.”

This (Northern) California Appeals Court, 3rd District,  ruled and concurred that
“The Electors did NOT have an affirmative duty to discover whether the candidate is a natural born citizen and, in fact, were required by statute to vote for their party’s nominee.”

“The Electors had to “vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution” (3 U.S.C. § 8), which refers to the constitutional directive found in the Twelfth Amendment, which provides in pertinent part:
         “The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots, the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate . . . .”

There is no obligation that the Electors first determine whether the presidential candidate is eligible for office.”  said the Court.

They went on further, stating that:
“… Similarly, the California Elections Code does not impose on the Electors any obligation to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility. The pertinent provisions direct that the Electors “shall assemble at the State Capitol at 2 o'clock in the afternoon on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next  following their election” (§ 6904)

and “shall vote by ballot for that person for President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are, respectively, the candidates of the political party which they represent, one of whom, at least, is not an inhabitant of this state.” (§ 6906.)

“The electors shall make separate lists of all persons voted for as President and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign, certify, seal, and transmit by mail to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.” (§ 6908.)

In other words, the Electors have a ministerial duty to convene on a specific date, in a specific place, to cast their ballots for their parties’ nominees, and then transmit their sealed list of votes to the President of the Senate. There is nothing in any state or federal legislation identified by plaintiffs imposing a ministerial duty on the Electors to investigate the eligibility of their parties’ candidate. Rather, they are directed that they “shall vote by ballot for that person for President and that person for Vice President of the United States, who are, respectively, the candidates of the political party which they represent . . . .” (§ 6906.)

2. The Secretary of State, in the eyes of this Court,  is obligated to subvert justice in furthering ineligible and illegal candidates.
              The Court of Appeals affirmed that “the Secretary of State does not have a duty to investigate and determine whether a presidential candidate meets eligibility requirements of the United State Constitution.”

Hence, the State of California Court of Appeals in Justices Scotland, Sims, and Robie are ruling and de facto arguing that whether a federal candidate is eligible or not to office, the Secretary of State in California can not only legally look the other way, but they can approvingly conspire and even be obligated to conspire in subverting justice in refusing to act in behalf of the citizens of the State of California of a knowingly ineligible candidate for ANY federal office IN OR OVER the State of California.

The Court of Appeals of California, 3rd District, argues:

                            a. …The Secretary of State is charged with ensuring “that elections are efficiently   conducted and that state election laws are enforced. . . .” (Gov. Code, § 12172.5.)


                           b. With respect to primary elections, section 6041 directs the Secretary of State to “place the name of a candidate upon the presidential primary ballot when he or she has determined that the candidate is generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. . .  After the 63rd day preceding a presidential primary election, the Secretary of State may add candidates to the selection, but he or she may not delete any presidential candidate whose name appears on the announced list except as provided in Section 6043 [concerning a selected candidate’s unqualified affidavit that he or she is not a candidate].


                           c. …Section 6043 provides: “If a selected candidate or an unselected candidate files with the Secretary of State, no later than the time specified in Section 6042, an affidavit stating without qualification that he or she is not now a candidate for the office of President of the United States, and stating that similar documents, also without qualification, have been or will be timely filed, where applicable, with the appropriate public election official in all other states holding open presidential primaries, that candidate’s name shall be omitted from the list of names certified by the Secretary of State to the county elections officials for the ballot and his or her name shall not appear on the ballot.


                         d. …Section 6901, which governs general elections, states: “Whenever a political party, in accordance with Section 7100, 7300, 7578, or 7843 [none of which concern constitutional eligibility], submits to the Secretary of State its certified list of nominees for electors of President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State shall notify each candidate for elector of his or her nomination by the party. The Secretary of State shall cause the names of the candidates for President and Vice President of the several political parties to be placed upon the ballot for the ensuing general election.” ...


                      e. The aforementioned statutes do not impose a clear, present, or ministerial duty on the Secretary of State to determine whether the presidential candidate meets the eligibility criteria of the United States Constitution. Section 6041 gives the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot, but she has no such discretion for the general election ballot, which is governed by section 6901. With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates.

3.   Applicable arguments to Elections Codes and Constitutionality or the lack thereof must be made by Plaintiffs in first brief when filing, not in subsequent briefs.

     This ruling, at least, is correct. 
The Court states:
 …In their reply brief, plaintiffs contend for the first time that section 6901’s mandate is unconstitutional and will lead to absurd results. For example, they argue, if the Republican Party nominated Arnold Schwarzenegger as their candidate, section 6901 would require that his name be placed on the ballot for the general election despite his ineligibility because of being foreign-born.

The contention is forfeited because it was raised for the first time in their reply brief without a showing of good cause. (Garcia v. McCutchen, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 482, fn. 10; American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 1453; Reichardt v. Hoffman, supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at pp. 764-765.)

In other words, any future brief filed in California will need to cite the same argument of section 6901 and the foreign born (and clearly ineligible for President)  Arnold Schwarzenegger argument in its very FIRST filing, such as post November 02, 2010's State and National election.. 

4.  The Plaintiffs, or those suing, should use every possible means of relevance in cases, and are responsible to cite law and cases that show the Court to be in error.

The California Appeals Court stated:
“the plaintiffs’ burden to show either that the demurrer was sustained erroneously or that the trial court’s denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion. (Savage v. Trammell Crow Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1562, 1576; Bush v. California Conservation Corps (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 194, 200.)” So that more intense Law, Case Law, and written and widely accepted legal authorities are used to overcome erroneous Court analysis, and open the door for further appeal and/or higher Court trial or appeal judgments.

“…the appellant has the burden to prove otherwise by presenting legal authority on each point made and factual analysis, supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in the record; otherwise, the argument may be deemed forfeited. (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6; Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116; Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.)

 It is the appellant’s responsibility to support claims of error with citation and authority; this court is not obligated to perform that function on the appellant’s behalf. (Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 113.)”

                      a. The appellant may not simply incorporate by reference arguments made in papers filed in the trial court, rather than brief them on appeal. (Garrick Development Co. v. Hayward Unified School Dist. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 320, 334.) And the appellant must present each point separately in the opening brief under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented and the point to be made; otherwise, the point will be forfeited. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830-1831, fn. 4.) This rule is “designed to lighten the labors of the appellate tribunals by requiring the litigants to present their cause systematically and so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining the rule of law to apply may be advised, as they read, of the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass.” (Landa v. Steinberg (1932) 126 Cal.App. 324, 325.)

                     b. Appellants may not attempt to rectify their omissions and oversights for the first time in their reply briefs because this deprives the opposing party of an opportunity to respond. (Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 482, fn. 10; American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1453; Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 764-765.)

5. The best course of action, the court infers...much like US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts did in 2009, was that the plaintiffs should have pursued a writ of Mandamus, follwed by the recruitment of at least one US Senator and one US Representative to submit in writing the challenge that Obama was unconstitutional at the time the electoral ballots were recounted and certified by the US Senate:

“…A writ of mandate will lie “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085.) “The two requirements for mandamus thus are (1) a clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the respondent, and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to performance of that duty.” (Barnes v. Wong (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 390, 394-395.)

Vice President Dick Cheney failed to call for objections before pushing the electoral process through, but the California Appeals Court said this issue of fact was never brought up at trial.

In 2005, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) did so protest and stop the electoral college process when objections were called for, and answered.   Boxer and Jones cited "election irregularities in Ohio', and there was discussion and delay before it was over-ruled by an overwhelming majority House and Senate vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143510,00.html

The anti-Bush 2005 letter of protest read as thus:

January 5, 2005
The Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones
1009 Longworth H.O.B.
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representative Tubbs Jones:
I am in receipt of your letter that spelled out concerns about the election irregularities in Ohio during the November 2004 election.
The fact that you are from Ohio and that you are a former judge gives great weight and much credibility to the points you cited and to your plea that these issues be addressed by the Congress.
I was particularly moved by your point that it is virtually impossible to get official House consideration of the whole issue of election reform, including these irregularities.

I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election.

I will therefore join you in your objection to the certification of Ohio's electoral votes. Attached is my signature on a copy of your written objection.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143513,00.html

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

In contrast, in ramming through the electoral votes for an illegal Presidential candidate in Obama, Dick Cheney didn't even bother to call for objections, and illegally thwarted due process. 

 US Code,  Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 15,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000015----000-.html

"Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

 Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. ..."

 'Upon such reading of any such certificate of paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections, if any,'"  was enough to have Attorney Mario Apuzzo sue on this issue. 

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=87622

and you can literally watch Dick Cheney do his illegal "zip past that" moment in this ff. video of the event.

 

By missing the presentation of  Vice-President's Cheney's failure to perform his obligated under the law duties at the first brief filing, and subsequently thereafter, the plaintiffs dropped the ball by virtue of inexperience in this kind of Courtroom expertise needed in a very hostile and partisan Court environment. 

The CA appeals court went on to state EXACTLY WHAT DID NOT OCCUR...'The President of the Senate calling for objections'.  In effect, had this point ben argued by Keyes et al, the case might have ben a slam dunk to have moved forward.
The Court said:
"The trial court found that plaintiffs did not identify any ministerial duty that the President and Vice President failed to perform, and the petition did not seek any relief against them; thus, plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action against those defendants. Plaintiffs do not present any reasoned argument under an appropriate argument heading challenging this determination.”

“The presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified… Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes. (3 U.S.C. § 15.)

…The counting of electoral votes in Congress and the process for objecting to them is detailed in section 15 of Title 3 of the United States Code, which provides in relevant part:

“[T]he votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.
 Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.
Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; . . .”

…The federal court noted that title 3 United States Code section 15 sets forth a process for objecting to the President elect, and the Twentieth Amendment provides that, “if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be elected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Thus, “mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. § 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and that the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review--if any--should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. [Citation.]” (Robinson v. Bowen, supra, 567 F.Supp.2d at p. 1147.)

Again, when the Court states that:
"The trial court found that plaintiffs did not identify any ministerial duty that the President and Vice President failed to perform..."
what should have been stated by the plaintiffs that the then Vice-President Richard Cheney FAILED to call for objections.  De facto, this legal technicality when properly presented and properly used,  is enough to REOPEN this whole issue as an illegally performed process that discriminated against any minority viewpoints, opinions, or objections of any type by any representative and senator.