An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.All those who have been following the Obama eligibility issue well know that Article II, Section 1, clause 5 provides that “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. . .” At this blog, I have already explained the importance of the “natural born Citizen” clause. See my essay entitled, Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html. In order for Obama to prove that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he must conclusively demonstrate that he was born in the United States to a United States citizen mother and father. For legal support for this definition of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, see, among others, my articles at this blog entitled, The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth, located at
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html;
Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship At Birth, located at
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html;
and 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html.
At present, there is much controversy regarding where Obama was born. We have seen much contradictory information regarding this issue. Obama maintains he was born in Hawaii at Kapi’olani Medical Center and as his best evidence he has posted on the internet a computer-imaged Certification of Live Birth (COLB, which is a summary of his alleged long-form hospital-generated birth certificate) to prove that fact. According to the laws of Hawaii, this summary document, which does not contain information as to which hospital he was born in or what doctor delivered him, is only prima facie evidence of a birth in Hawaii. On the other hand, there exists evidence that Obama was born in Kenya. For a presentation of this evidence, see my essay on this blog entitled,
Obama Has Not Met His Burden Of Proving He Was Born In Hawaii, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/obama-has-not-met-his-burden-of-proving.html. Additionally, just over the last few days, we have seen surface on the internet old newspaper articles that were written in African newspapers in 2004 stating that Obama was born in Kenya. http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/video-documents-discovery-of-ap-story-declaring-obama-kenyan-born/; http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/2-more-african-news-agencies-declare-obama-kenyan-born/; http://thepmnews.com/2008/11/25/two-nigerians-tipped-as-potential-%E2%80%98british-obama%E2%80%99. Because of this conflicting information, the prima facie validity of the COLB must fail. Hence, Obama should present evidence that corroborates his and the State of Hawaii’s position that he was born in Hawaii and that he is a “natural born Citizen. He has without good reason refused to provide this evidence.
It has been reported how past Hawaiian State practices with its birth certificate procedures have presented opportunities for birth certificate fraud. An example of such fraud is that of Chinese native, Sun Yat Sen, one of the founders of the Republic of China, who was born in China but was able to obtain a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1904 based on his fraudulent affidavit and evidence submitted by witnesses to the Hawaiian authorities stating that he was born in Hawaii on November 24, 1870. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii. See also the September 2000 report of the Office of Inspector General, entitled “Birth Certificate Fraud,” which provides an update on the nature and extent of birth certificate fraud, found at http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf. Because of critical importance of knowing for sure who the President is, the potential for birth certificate fraud, and since Obama’s original long-form birth certificate housed in the offices of the Hawaii Department of Health can be some type of certificate (even a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth) that is based on some family member’s affidavit of personal knowledge but which includes no documentary evidence of an actual birth in Hawaii, it becomes crucial to confirm whether there exists any corroborating evidence of Obama actually being born in Hawaii. Consequently, various members of the public have tried to obtain information that would adequately confirm Obama’s and the State of Hawaii’s statements that he was born in Hawaii. These concerned citizens have made requests to the State of Hawaii and to various hospitals there for such information. The State of Hawaii, Kapi’olani Medical Center, and Queens Medical Center (originally claimed by Obama’s sister to be his birth place) have publicly stated that they cannot release the needed details of Obama’s birth, including whether his deceased mother was even a maternity patient in any of those hospitals, because of Obama’s state and federal privacy rights. Not being successful, some of these concerned citizens, feeling duty bound to the Constitution and our country, have filed law suits and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions against Obama and others to obtain this information.
Given that Obama and/or his agents have already publicly released some information regarding his place of birth, one commentator, William, has asked me on my blog ( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/. ) whether Obama has waived his privacy rights to such birth information. At least two arguments can be advanced that Obama has waived any privacy right that he might have in his birth information located in the State of Hawaii and in its hospitals. One is that he has waived his privacy rights to his alleged long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate by posting his COLB on the internet for the world to see. A problem with this argument is that the COLB does not disclose all his private information (name of hospital, doctors, etc.) and he can argue that his waiver is only as to the information contained on the COLB and no more. As a response, it can be argued that Obama waived his privacy right as to the identity of the hospital in which he was born given that he allegedly wrote a letter dated January 24, 2009 to Kapi'olani Medical Center in which he acknowledged being born there and which letter the hospital posted on its web page (suspiciously posting not a scan of an actual paper letter but only a computer-generated image created with HTML code) for the world to see. For more details, see the WND story on the letter at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=104146. I have grave doubts whether this letter is authentic given that both Obama and U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie D-Hawaii, who allegedly gave the letter to the hospital and publicly read the letter during the hospital’s centennial celebration, refuse to confirm whether this letter is real.
The second argument is more powerful and convincing. Under Article II, a would-be President must be a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible for the Presidency. Hence, any candidate knows that such "natural born Citizen" status is required to hold the public Office of President. No one winning an election and wanting to fill that public office has a reasonable expectation of privacy as to where he/she was born given that job’s eligibility requirement that one must be a “natural born Citizen.” See my article on this blog entitled, Obama's Personal Right To Privacy Cannot Trump The Right Of The People To Know Who Their President Is, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/obamas-personal-right-to-privacy-cannot.html. Of course, that person’s obligation to prove his/her “natural born Citizen” status includes providing credible, competent, and sufficient documentary and other evidence of, among other things, place of birth. Clearly and without doubt, the public interest in knowing that the President-elect is eligible for the office he/she seeks to fill by far out weighs any privacy interest that the person may have in his/her birth documents. It is also clear that knowing who the person is who will occupy the Office of President and Commander in Chief concerns national security and the safety of the United States and the whole world. It is not reasonable to believe that such a person's privacy interest would out weigh the People’s need to safeguard national security and for self-preservation. Simply put, it would be beyond absurdity to honestly contend that such a person has a right to shield from the same People that he/she is constitutionally duty bound to serve and protect information that he/she must provide to them to show that he/she is qualified for that singular and all-powerful public position which would vest him/her with great power to affect every aspect of the People’s lives.
But underneath the privacy rights question lurks a much more serious concern. We can see the absurdity of Obama sitting on privacy rights to conceal his long-form birth certificate from the public. It is downright despicable for our media and Congress and others to apologize for Obama and let him get away with it. They know full well that he has no such privacy rights. The birth information and documents that Obama refuses to reveal to the public surely are revealing of whether his is eligible to hold the Office of President. Why has the media not filed any legal actions against Obama, the State of Hawaii, and other parties, seeking to legally lift any privacy barriers to Obama's birth information as it has so many times in the past filed actions against others running for public office who sought to prevent the public from learning details of some aspect of their private lives? What is a travesty of justice is that Obama was probably able to win his U.S. Senate seat because the media (Chicago Tribune) filed a legal action against rival Republican Jack Ryan in which it was successful in getting the "kinky sex" details of his divorce released to the public. Why the media in our country would believe what type of sex two consenting married adults practice is more important than making sure that the national security of our country is protected is beyond comprehension and represents the quintessence of warped priorities. I do not believe that anyone who truly cares about our country and Constitution can express enough in words the outrage that he/she feels about how cowardly our political leaders and media have acted with Obama on the question of his place of birth.
Congress has abdicated its constitutional oath and the media, the so-called fourth branch of our government, has failed to perform its journalistic duty to the People of the United States to assure them that Obama’s election to the highest and most powerful office in the land adhered to our Constitution and laws. Congress has been given a chance to correct its failings and still it refuses to perform its constitutional obligation. With the assistance of its media cronies and others, they all ridicule and suppress the efforts of those who are fighting to make sure that our Constitution has been respected in the last Presidential election and that our nation is safe with Obama currently occupying the Presidency and being the Commander in Chief of our military might.
We must then ask ourselves why Congress and the media have not pressed Obama for the necessary and relevant birth information for at least the sake of the integrity of the Presidential election process and the safety of our nation? Moreover, Obama cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because under the British Nationality Act of 1948 when Obama was born in 1961 his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. See Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen, located at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-president-of-us-is-currently-also_29.html. Like a naturalized citizen who is not eligible to be President, Obama was born with an allegiance to a foreign power and is therefore not eligible to be President and more so not eligible to be the leader of our military men and women. To allow Obama to hide his birth information and to not challenge him for not being an Article II “natural born Citizen” is nothing more than at best, politicians and those in their coterie allowing corrupt party politics, self-interest, and/or cowardice to blind their constitutional duty to protect and defend our country and Constitution, at worst, part of someone’s plot to attack and destroy the United States from within, or both. Given that any attack on the United States will most likely come from within, these latter two scenarios must be given serious consideration and ruled out only after sufficient evidence exists to so rule them out. Hence, the deliberate or reckless failing by those who are supposed to protect and defend our country and Constitution is tantamount to treason.
All members of Congress that have allowed and continue to allow the raping of our Constitution and the placing of our nation at risk of being attacked from within need to be removed from Congress, without any exceptions. As to what to do with those members of the media and others who have failed and continue to fail to do their job to adequately protect and defend our Constitutional Republic, that is a question for another day.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831
October 17, 2009
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
26 comments:
Excellent article and I especially like the last paragraph ...
Thank you for the careful expressions of what many intuitively bekieve.
I appreciate Mario writing these fabolous essays. I just wish it were possible that Mario could help Orly or Kreep with a possible Amicis Curie Brief. I am sure his legal input into this issue would prove most valuable.
Honestly, it really helps to read Mario's articles, especially when I so often feel discouraged on this issue. Thank you Mario and Charles.
I also want to tell you that I listened to your radio interview on Friday, and wanted reassure you that all of us in the know are cognizant that it is Mario who has written the definitive essays on Natural Born Citizen, not someone else. Additionally, I really appreciate the way you refrain from talking about other Attorneys' cases. Not only does that show your class, but it keeps you from assisting the evil empire (as others have done).
I have a question for you. On one of your radio interviews, I heard Charles state that there was some reason why you could use Quo Warranto outside of the D.C. jurisdictional issue. Could you either tell me how that is, or direct me to one of Mario's writings where that question is answered?
Thank you both so much for all that you are doing.
TruthExists,
As I understand it Quo Warranto can be used in a complaint as an adjunct to other charges in the complaint in a case brought under the All Writs Act. Since we have brought 12 counts in this complaint the Quo Warranto is not a stand alone action in this case and is being brought with other charges and counts. Thus under the All Writs Act, Quo Warranto can be used in our case. That is my understanding and as I remember it what I said on a prior radio show. Now I am not a lawyer so if I have it wrong or slightly wrong or mostly wrong, I will let Mario address it further, if he so chooses. This is also a historic and precedence setting type of case to support and defend the Constitution under the 9th Amendment and We the People have an inalienable right as the true "sovereigns" to bring a Quo Warranto count or charge to force elected officials under our Constitution and contract between the federal government and we the sovereign people, that they are complying with the rules, i.e., the Constitution. If the elected and appointed officials ignore the People and usurp the Constitution, We the People have an inalienable right to challenge them under ancient common law and the 9th Amendment, since WE ARE THE SOVEREIGNS in our nation. Intervening modern statutory laws and ruling must fall by the wayside for a historic and precedence setting situation and case like this one where the person sitting in the Oval Office has usurped the Constitution and ignored the eligibility clause of the Constitution and he as leader of the executive branch then stifles the DOJ from protecting the Constitution and the Congress shirks its Constitutional duties and oath. This will all be up to our Judge and in the end the U.S. Supreme Court. But this case will make new law, imo, which will over-ride existing statutes for cases of a constitutional matter of this type.
People who say enforcing the Constitution is restricted by some statute pass by Congress do not understand the U.S. Constitution as the fundamental law of our nation and that We the People are the Sovereigns ... not the Congress and their statutory laws.
But if Atty Apuzzo feels revealing the interlaced hooks in our complaint and counts would reveal too much of our strategy or arguments before we get to address the judge in a hearing or trial, then I would understanding his not wanting to discuss it in any greater detail. We do not discuss details of the case tactics or strategy in this blog as per the Blog Rules.
Charles Kerchner
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
P.S. Please help me get the word out to the general public. Visit this website and help if you can and send it to your friends too:
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
TruthExists,
Some mistakenly argue that a quo warranto action may be filed and prosecuted only in the DC district court in Washington, D.C. That statement would be true only if a party does not have a cause of action that gives the court original juridiction otherwise than through the quo warranto action. In other words, the D.C district court would have exclusive original jurisdiction over such a petition only if a party is not able to prove that a district court other than the DC court has original jurisdiction in the case any other way.
If a party wants to avoid having to file its action under the DC code in the DC district, that party must show the selected court that it has original jurisdiction by way of some other statutory or constitutional provision. This means that the party cannot rely upon the quo warranto action alone to try to prove that the selected district court has original jurisdiction. If the party can prove that the court has original jurisdiction otherwise by showing that it has an underlying claim based on some other statutory or constitutional provision which gives that court original jurisdiction, the party is neither compelled to use the DC statute nor the DC district court, but rather can file the party’s quo warranto petition in any properly venued district of the United States seeking relief in conjunction with that underlying statutory or constitutional provision which is the basis for the court to assert original jurisdiction in the first instance.
In such later case, the quo warranto jurisdiction is said to be ancillary to the court's original jurisdiction that rests on a separate and distinct statutory or constitutional provision in the first instance. Under such circumstances, the district court would obtain ancillary jurisdiction over the petition for quo warranto under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651(a) (the All Writs Act which authorizes the court to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"), for the court would already have original jurisdiction over plaintiff’s other claims. Under such circumstances, the All Writs Act may be used because the party is not using the act to augment the jurisdiction of the court but rather only petitioning the court that it issue the quo warranto writ as an aid to the court's already existing original jurisdiction.
As far as showing that the Court has original jurisdiction otherwise than through the quo warranto action, one has to put forward a cause of action based on the Constitution or federal statute that gives the court that original jurisdiction. In the Kerchner complaint, I have included various original jurisdiction constitutional claims, one of which rests on the 9th Amendment as a basis to further support the quo warranto action. Quo warranto is an ancient common law writ. The 9th Amendment, which preserves for the People their remedies under the the ancient common law writs, takes the place of the D.C. statute.
There are other issues involved with a quo warranto action. I will not address those, for I have only answered your question.
I hope this helps in better understanding how a quo warranto action works.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Mr. Curiosity said:
"Mario,
My question is:
Why, in your opinion, didn't all GOP lawyers address the issue of Obama's presidential eligibility in 2008 to prevent the mess we are in now?"
Mr. Curiosity."
There is no one answer to this question. Some of the reasons that I can think of are ignorance, apathy, fear, prejudice, ambition, and profit.
Thanks Mario and Charles...
Thank you Charles and Mario for your enlightening answer re Quo Warranto.
Potus case in my opinion is a case close one. But if both plaintiff could answer to me in simple and plain english do or do not some one that is forced to had other nationality
Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia
Article 1. Citizens of the Republic of Indonesia are:
b.persons who at their birth have a legal family relationship with their father, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, with the understanding that said citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia starts as from the existence of that legal family relationship and that said legal family relationship is created before the persons concerned have reached the age of 18 or before they are married at an earlier age;
Article 4.
(1)Aliens born and domiciled in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia whose father or mother, in case they have no legal family relationship with the father, is also born in the territory of the Republic in Indonesia and is a resident of the Republic of Indonesia, may present a petition to the Minister of Justice in order to acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if they, after having acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, have no other nationality or at the time that they present a petition they also make a statement as to having released another nationality which they may possibly possess, in accordance with the legal provisions prevailing in the country of their origin or according to the provisions of the Agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country in question.
Law No. 62 of 1958, Law on the Citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia
Article 14.
(1)If the children as mentioned in article 2 and article 13 reach the age of 21, they loose the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia again, if and when they make a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within 1 year after the children have reached the age of 21 to the Pengadilan Negeri of Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at their residence.
(2)The provision of para 1 is not applicable if said children become stateless with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia.
Article 13.
(1)Children who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet, who have a legal family relationship with their father before said father has acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, also acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, after they reside and are in Indonesia. The statement as to their residence and being in Indonesia is not valid for children who because their father acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia becomes stateless.
(2)The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by a mother also applies to her children who have no legal family relationship with the father, who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet after they have resided and are in Indonesia. If said citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia is acquired with the naturalization by a mother who has become a widow because of the decease of her husband, the children who have a legal family relationship with said husband, who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet also acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia after they reside and are in Indonesia. Statements as to their residence and being in Indonesia are not valid for children who because their mother has acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia become stateless.
Law no.63 of 1958
Article 13.
(1)Children who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet, who have a legal family relationship with their father before said father has acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, also acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, after they reside and are in Indonesia. The statement as to their residence and being in Indonesia is not valid for children who because their father acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia becomes stateless.
(2)The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by a mother also applies to her children who have no legal family relationship with the father, who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet after they have resided and are in Indonesia. If said citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia is acquired with the naturalization by a mother who has become a widow because of the decease of her husband, the children who have a legal family relationship with said husband, who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet also acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia after they reside and are in Indonesia. Statements as to their residence and being in Indonesia are not valid for children who because their mother has acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia become stateless.
law no.62 of 1958; the law of Indonesian citizenship
Article 14.
(1)If the children as mentioned in article 2 and article 13 reach the age of 21, they loose the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia again, if and when they make a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within 1 year after the children have reached the age of 21 to the Pengadilan Negeri of Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at their residence.
(2)The provision of para 1 is not applicable if said children become stateless with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia.
law no.62 of 1958, the law of Indonesian citizenship
Article 14.
(1)If the children as mentioned in article 2 and article 13 reach the age of 21, they loose the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia again, if and when they make a statement as to that effect. Said statement shall be made within 1 year after the children have reached the age of 21 to the Pengadilan Negeri of Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at their residence.
(2)The provision of para 1 is not applicable if said children become stateless with the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia.
those are the law in Indonesia as preliminary prove v thy potus. How ever this shall work if thou had law that said that dual nationality could in fact denies the natural born citizen status of potus. here's your job mr appuzo and kechner along with the marriage law under comments on the American thinker site titled obama and the tugs on the comments line
*DUAL NATIONALITY*
Dual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The
automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for
example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not
affect U.S. citizenship. It is prudent, however, to check with authorities
of the other country to see if dual nationality is permissible under local
law. Dual nationality can also occur when a person is naturalized in a
foreign state without intending to relinquish U.S. nationality and is
thereafter found not to have lost U.S. citizenship: the individual
consequently may possess dual nationality. While recognizing the existence
of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities,
the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims
of other countries upon dual-national U.S. citizens often place them in
situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the
laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts to
provide U.S. diplomatic and consular protection to them when they are
abroad. connect those laws and this one I got from the Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality
The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship
status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with
the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.
if any one of you wanted to use this one to make a law suit base on this fact from this forum; then you must knowing first either dual nationality of some one can or cannot annihilated the natural born status. if this one can then he even cannot be defended by his lawyers at all, but if the natural born citizen status cannot be denied by dual nationality then he is eligible as POTUS no matter what. the key is once again can or cannot dual nationality denies some one natural born citizen status.
the potus said he is briefly stays in Indonesia when he was a child. and Indonesian gov denies that he even once an Indonesian citizen. But this confuse me a lot with the Indonesian citizenship law that being applied during his time in Indonesia and only recently being revoked by UU no 12 of 2006 and also the newer law could only act retroactively within 3 years before and not after.
last but not the least:
www.kitlv-jurnals.nl http://www.kitlv-journals.nl/index.php/btlv/article/viewFile/2349/3110>];
this site contains explaination of the dutch law that were applied before 1974 marriage law were applied in Indonesia (uu no.1 tahun 1974) the law it self were on this location (of course in dutch language)
You must also obtaining the fully translation of:
1. UU no 1 tahun 1974 applied since 1974 till now.
2. Regeling op de gemengde Huwelijken S. 1898 No. 158
to this law seek to the dutch embassy to obtain this one on their archives.
Asked if they had the real (dutch text) and the english version on this law get the copy and their
stamp in order to make it official; do it ASAP
and finally the translation of UU no.62 tahun 1958; on the address :
www.unhcr.org on www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b4ec8.htm
and here's some other site that really could help thee on this subject:
[asnic.utexas.edu in asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/countries/indonesia/ConstIndonesia.html
contains the real Indonesian constitution before amendment
www.us-asean.org/Indonesia/constitution.htm]
contains Indonesian constitution after amendment in 2002
www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/1999/21.html
docs.google.com in docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:LPS07fHZ2MEJ:
www.reunite.org/edit/files/Islamic%2520Resource/Indonesia%2520Text.pdf+indonesian+marriage+law%2B1974&hl=en>]
The bottom line is Although according to Indonesian law he is/ was an Indonesian but according to US law he had dual nationality and if I wasn't mistakenly seek that according to US law if some one on other land forced to renounced his US citizenship, under US law he is considered has dual nationality. this I read on the site called travel.state.gov at travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html.
The key issue to solved this case is to make sure that according to US law dual nationality could annulled natural born status of a person. if dual nationality cannot renounced natural born citizen then this one had no effect at all.
Manfredzhou,
I am not quite confident where you are headed here? Are you asking/implying whether or not duel citizenship plays a role in determining/defining a Natural Born Citizenship status? You Said (in part)……
[….“but if the natural born citizen status cannot be denied by dual nationality then he is eligible as POTUS no matter what.”]
My quick response to this would be to question whether or a “Naturalized Citizen” can run for POTUS? The answer is no, of course not. The question then becomes why not? Because they have duel loyalties from birth and for that very reason, not having a single loyalty, disqualifies them.
Therefore does a Citizen at Birth which has duel loyalties qualify for POTUS when the other does not? The answer is no, they don’t and for the very same reason.
Only a Natural Born Citizen has a single loyalty to a Country and that is obtained by having parents which are citizens of that County and the child of said citizens being born on the Soil of that Country. Anything else is not NBC status.
if that so, then you had the case close if you pursuit on the matter I said to you. but you must put the base of US constitution that said directly that he is indeed if had dual nationality cannot retain his natural born citizen status.
On the other hand you also must make sure that all the civil law in Indonesia related to this matter is on your hand. otherwise his man could denies this. and please obtained, copy and paste the law and the source written on that site asap before his tugs erase that and make them destroyed like the obamabirther.com that had the translation written about the marriage law in Indonesia that connected to him.
Manfredzhou,
I believe I understand what you are trying to emphasize. However, he cannot “retain” NBC status simply because he “never” had it. Pertaining to his citizenship in Indonesia will most likely be shown through his passport information and/or college records if he used such status. Indonesia is not going to “cooperate” with any U.S. attorney and hand over records, no more than Kenya did. It is difficult enough attempting to gain such records right here in the U.S., little lone a foreign country.
As far as the “Case Closed” situation, this will be a slam dunk once any of the cases get into the merits and not be dismissed on technicalities, ie.., Standing, jurisdiction, ect…
yes indeed but I also could strengthen my opinion that this is the breaker
tigerzhou,
You have my curiosity. Can you please expound a bit.
yes I could but not in this forum, perhaps If I could get to sent an attachment to you or Mr. Charles Kechner, then I could explain my investigation. The base conclusion is that he had according to US law dual nationality, to prove that I use Indonesian law either about mixed marriage before present marriage law, Indonesian civil law and Indonesian citizenship law no.62/1958. It's all there.
Post a Comment