Saturday, August 6, 2011

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC Should Be Ethically Sanctioned for Intentionally Misstating to the American Public the Birthers’ Position On Whether Obama Is A "Natural Born Citizen"

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC Should Be Ethically Sanctioned for Intentionally Misstating to the American Public the Birthers’ Position On Whether Obama Is A "Natural Born Citizen"


                                                             By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                  August 6, 2011







Readers should view MSNBC's Rachel Maddow’s news reporting on August 4, 2011, to the U.S. national viewing audience in which she presents what she claims it means to be a "Birther."  The video can be viewed at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/08/rachel-maddow-schooled-on-obamas.html.  She gives the most extreme, distorted, biased, inaccurate, and ridiculous statement of what "birtherism" is (e.g., she says that “birthers” believe that Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. concocted a grand plan to make a “terror baby” in 1961 who would secretly become President of the United States). Her explanation is replete with insolence, ridicule, misstatements, and ad hominem attacks. She then follows up her diatribe with audio clips of political leaders who question Obama’s eligibility, implying without any evidence that they also ascribe to the ridiculous explanation that she just presented on what it means to be a birther. Clearly, her insidious purpose is to ridicule the entire “birther” movement and any public person who would dare ascribe to any of its ideas.

What Maddow has presented on the critically important national security issue of whether Obama is constitutionally eligibility to be president is not unbiased, objective, and informative journalism. Her story is all about sensationalism wrapped with smugness, arrogance, and ridicule. Not once in her attack does she mention the real legal debate which is whether putative President, Barack Obama, is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Not once do we hear her talk about the debate regarding the constitutional definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Maddow mocks and ridicules the “birthers” for what she says are their conspiracy theories about Obama’s origins and eligibility to be President. But the issue of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not a conspiracy. Rather, it is a straightforward constitutional issue which not only Maddow, but the entire mainstream media continue to avoid reporting to the American people. Rather, their scheme is to talk about ridiculous conspiracy theories (the hatching of presidential “terror babies”), crack a lot of jokes about them and the people they falsely accuse of following them, give us their phony smiles, and hide the real issue. But people like Maddow can get on public television all they want and put on their little carnival act under the plastic cover of television, but they will not be able to hide the facts and the law from the American people.

Under binding U.S. Supreme Court case law, an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875), which held:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Id. at 167-68.

This U.S. Supreme Court’s definition was stated in 1758 by Emer de Vattel, the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite writer on natural law and the law of nations, in his, The Law of Nations, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) where he said the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The virtually unanimous documented view that prevailed during the Founding, as confirmed by the views of the Founders and Framers, text and structure of the Constitution, and federal and state case law, was that the law of nations was considered universal common law that was binding on the people, the President, Congress, and the nation, and “part of the laws of the United States within the symmetric ambit of Article II, Section 3, III, Section 2, and VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.” As to this conclusion, see the exhaustive research paper of Jordan J. Paust, In Their Own Words: Affirmations of the Founders, Framers, and Early Judiciary Concerning the Binding Nature of the Customary Law of Nations University of Houston Public Law and Legal Theory Series 2009-A-27, which can be downloaded without charge at The University of Houston Accepted Paper Series Index.

Moreover, Vattel’s and Minor’s definition was also acknowledged by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the seminal case on U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, which clarified and established the meaning of a Fourteenth Amendment “born” “citizen” and again confirmed the meaning of an Article II “natural born” citizen, and by doing so informed that there are two birthright citizenships under the Constitution, one under Article II (“natural born”) and the other under the Fourteenth Amendment (“born” in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Under Article II of our Constitution, only a “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President, for only a “natural born” citizen is born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States which means being born with sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States and none to any foreign power. The Founders and Framers wanted to assure that the new constitutional republic would be lead both civilly and militarily by a person who from the moment of birth had sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States. It is only by being born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother that no foreign allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship attach to the child at the moment of birth or as Vattel put it, “if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Id. at Sec. 212. It is therefore inconceivable that the Founders and Framers, who went to great lengths to insulate the new republic from foreign influence and monarchial rule, would have countenanced a person born after the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military who did not meet the law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

If Obama was born in Hawaii (a fact that he has yet to conclusively prove) and if his parents are Barack H. Hussein and Stanley Ann Dunham (it is reported that these are his parents), he can be a Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) “born” “citizen of the United States,” but he cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is the constitutional standard that he must meet to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a “citizen of the United States” at the time of Obama’s birth. But his father, being born in 1934 or 1936 in what was then the British colony of Kenya, was under the British Nationality Act of 1948, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (“CUKC”). Obama himself by right of decent from his father under the same Act was also born a CUKC. Hence, because Obama was not born in the United States to United States citizen parents, he was not born under the sole and undivided allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Obama was not born with sole citizenship in the United States. Consequently, he was not born with unity of allegiance to and citizenship in the United States. Obama, therefore, cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is not eligible under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Media watch dog groups such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and Media Matters for America (MMFA), and the Project for Excellence in Journalism have been suspiciously missing from commenting on the mainstream media’s news reporting on this Obama eligibility debate. Such absence is more suspect when we consider what lengths such watch groups and others have gone to attack Fox News Channel for what they contend is biased news reporting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies#cite_note-15.

The Preamble to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics provides:

“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.” http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.

See also the professional electronic journalists’ code of ethics at http://www.rtdna.org/pages/media_items/code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct48.php.

“Media makers and journalists carry a lot of responsibility when covering important news events. Journalists should follow a set of ethic standards to ensure fair, accurate and honest reporting. In the profession and study of journalism, a code of ethics has been set as a standard for reporters to follow. Often, journalists deal with sensitive issues and must tell stories while facing a number of ethical dilemmas such as privacy, conflict of interest, journalist-source relationships and the role of journalists in society.” Read more: Code of Ethics in MediaeHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6521911_code-ethics-media.html#ixzz1UGymorNh. Indeed, the pillars of a journalist ethical code are ethics, privacy, truth, fairness, accountablility, and independence.

So, what ever happened to enforcing journalist standards and protecting the greater good from corruption and abuse, whether it comes from government or from our own national media? The public having fair, balanced, and accurate news information is critical to the survival of republican government. Then why have we allowed our news media to become a propaganda machine that is politicized, untrustworthy, and, as we can witness not only from Maddow’s presidential “terror baby” presentation but from that of so many other news reporters, nothing more than a vicious joke factory? We should be very sensitive to the protections that the First Amendment gives us. But when will our news industry police itself and hold the Maddows of news reporting accountable from a journalistic standpoint for the potential harm that they do to their profession and our nation?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 6, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved



28 comments:

Independent Constitutionalist said...

So what does it matter now? You are failing to state the real point! And that point is...

IT'S ALL OVER (AGAIN)! The Constitution is dead, the Congress is dead and of course, the White House is dead. This friggin' country is without a POTUS and NOTHING CAN BE SIGNED INTO LAW! This friggin' "debt ceiling ponzi scam" that just passed and signed by a bogus thug and illegal alien in the WH is void! When are you all going to get it into your thick boneheaded noggin's that it is a crisis that cannot ever be resolved.

It happened once in 1881 under the Republican crud named Chester Arthur and now the second time under Soetoro. We have 12 States that came in AFTER 1881... Hawaii included. At least the other 11 were TERRITORIES so all of us are citizens...but Hawaii was not a territory by 1881 so Soetoro is definitely not a citizen by territorial rights, let alone by state-rights.

Sorry, but you are a day late and a dollar short!

SaipanAnnie said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

Regarding Rachel Maddow's remarks, as you paraphrase, stating that

“birthers” believe that Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. concocted a grand plan to make a “terror baby” in 1961 who would secretly become President of the United States

intent or not, it is EXACTLY what was created - a TERROR BABY!

At least she got one thing correct.

jayjay said...

Independent Constitutionalist:

It's not completely dead yet, But it's getting there and fools like R. Madcow don't help a bit in a positive direction of restore our country.

She/he is merely one of the gaggle of Communists in the media (and there are many others) helping Obama try to bring about this destruction.

In fact, like many of these "afterbirthers" she is quite likely an accessory after the fact under our laws.

Kanbun said...

Hi Mario,
Another excellent essay. This woman is detestable and referring to her, even by implication, as a journalist is doing her a great favor. She has never done anything but shill for left wing, marxist ideology and now for Barry. The sad thing is that there are apparently enough people watching her to keep her on the air.

Thank you for your writings and your work to expose the skunk that would call himself POTUS.

Puzo1 said...

Independent Constitutionalist,

I have never been a self-defeatist in my life and I am not about to start being one now.

We have to hit these deceivers and manipulators back hard, not just sitting back and taking it and just letting the lies to further fester. The truth is not learned by some magical process. We have to actively work on making sure the American people learn what the truth is.

Allow me to leave you with this thought: “Who controls the past” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."--George Orwell (1984)

Puzo1 said...

Please read this hard-hitting article written by Erik Rush, author of “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession.”

Yo! Yo! BHO! We Don’t Want You Any Mo’! , accessed at http://www.thedailypledge.com/current-articles/1047-yo-yo-bho-we-dont-want-you-any-mo

Independent Constitutionalist said...

@mario: "I have never been a self-defeatist in my life and I am not about to start being one now."

It is the only chance we have! We must deny their control over us by telling them that "the constitution is dead" so therefore they have lost their control via the FED, the Rothschilds, the Tri Laterals, the Rockefellers, the CFR, the Vatican etc... Please don't tell me you REALLY THINK we are in control of ANYTHING! Once we demand to resurrect our dead constitution then we have a chance. If you hide your head in the sand and proclaim that ALL IS WELL IN ZION...Lucifer claps with glee!

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:
"The virtually unanimous documented view that prevailed during the Founding, as confirmed by the views of the Founders and Framers, text and structure of the Constitution, and federal and state case law, was that the law of nations was considered universal common law that was binding on the people, the President, Congress, and the nation, and “part of the laws of the United States within the symmetric ambit of Article II, Section 3, III, Section 2, and VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.”

Response:

There is a difference between Vattel's book entitled Law of Nations and the legal concept called Law of Nations(now called International law).

Although the legal concept Law of Nations is part of the English common law; however, Vattel did not orginate the term Law of Nations.

In fact, prior to 1758 when Vattel first published his book "Law of Nations" there were other books discussing nations conduct with other nations that used the term "law of nations"

"He observes, that the Trecepts of both are the fame: But that for as much as States when they are once instituted, ajjume the Terfonal Troprieties of Men, hence it comes to pass, that what, speaking of the Duty of particular Men, we call the Law of Nature, the same we term the LAW OF NATIONS, when we apply it to whole States, Nations, or Teople" Samuel Pufendorf, "The Law of Nature and Nations," 1710 (2nd edition, English translation)
page 123 (emphasis added)


By the LAW OF NATIONS we mean such rules, as nations or civil societies are obliged to observe in their intercourse with onb, another. There are several points relating both to civil-laws and to the law of nations, which want to be explaned. But our business in this chapter was only to give the reader a general notion of laws, to shew him the several sorts, into which laws may be divided ; and to bring him acquainted with the general matter of the law of nature. Such points, as relate to civil laws or to the law of nations, shall be explaned in their proper place. Thomas Rutherforth, “Institutes of Natural Law” (1754) Page 24 (emphasis added)

As such, Vattel's book "Law of Nations" wasn't the first book
explaining Law of Nations.

However, as observed by the Supreme Court in Hilton v. Guyot, 159 US 113. 163 (1895), Law of Nations or International law deal with questions between nations
"International law, in its widest and most comprehensive sense including not only questions of right between nations, governed by what has been appropriately called the law of nations"

However,in the area of nationality laws, courts in the United States have held that these laws are governed by municipal laws not international laws.

"[E]ach government had a right to decide for itself who should be admitted or deemed citizens.” Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour in City of New York, 28 US 99, 162 (1830)

“Citizenship depends, however, entirely on municipal law and is not regulated by international law. Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166 , 169 (DC 1951)

Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964)


As such, lawyer drafters who studied English common law
wrote the Constitution using English common law language.
Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888)(“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”)
See also In re Gannon, 27 F. 2d 362, 363 (ED PA 1928)("The framers of the Constitution were familiar with common-law concepts and the words and phrases employed by common-law lawyers.")

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

I never argued that Vattel's treatise, The Law of Nations, which you call a "book," was the same as the legal concept, the law of nations. Rather, what I have said is that Vattel wrote about natural law and the law of nations in his book called, The Law of Nations, and that he was the Founders and Framers favorite writer on the subject. I also never said that Vattel was the first person to write about the law of nations. That would be a ridiculous thing for me to say given the ancient origins of the law of nations which may be found in the laws of the Roman empire.

I also never said that the English common law did not incorporate concepts of natural law and the law of nations. In fact, we know that, as natural law and the law of nations became part of American "common-law" (see Minor v. Happersett), they also became part of English common law.

Apart from several other sources from the period that I have cited in other of my essays on this blog, I have also cited several U.S. Supreme Court cases which defined a "natural born Citizen" specifically under natural law and the law of nations which became American common law. You, on the other hand, argue that during the Founding, the Founders and Framers used "municipal law" rather than the law of nations to define citizenship in the new republic. Would you be so kind as to tell me what "municipal law" the Founders and Framers relied upon to define a "natural born Citizen." Be sure to provide citations to whatever source you identify. I am telling you that I expect you to cite something other than Wong Kim Ark which was decided in 1898 and which, in any event, only dealth with defining a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment and not a "natural born Citizen" under Article II.

Puzo1 said...

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Will be on The Terry Lakin Action Fund Radio Show – Hosted by David Moxley – Monday 8 Aug 2011 @ 3 PM ET « CDR Kerchner's Blog
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/cdr-charles-kerchner-ret-will-be-on-the-terry-lakin-action-fund-radio-show-hosted-by-david-moxley-monday-8-aug-2011-3-pm-et/

paraleaglenm said...

Congress can fix this by revising 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) with a brief definition of 'under the jurisdiction thereof,' meaning 'not subject to any foreign power.'

The legislative history, in the statute footnotes could include the following case: United States vs. Rhodes Case No. 16,151

“That all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;..."

Explanation from John C. Eastman, Ph.D:

The “subject to the jurisdiction” provision must therefore require something IN ADDITION to mere birth on U.S. soil. The language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was derived, provides the key to its meaning. The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and NOT SUBJECT to any foreign power, (excluding Indians not taxed,) are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
[3] As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were TEMPORARY VISITORS to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child’s par­ents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents’ home country was NOT ENTITLED to claim the birth­right citizenship provided by the 1866 Act.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/03/From-Feudalism-to-Consent-Rethinking-Birthright-Citizenship

Soil Citizenship, or Jus Soli, is a feudal concept based on a helpless baby born relying on the protection of the king. However, an alien father visiting or residing in that king's dominion had the natural and legal right to deny allegiance of his child to that king.

American jurists from James Madison (1789) to Justice Gray maintained an almost romantic affinity to jus soli, ignoring that the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, et seq through 1855, included not even a hint of jus soli principles.

U.S. legislated act supersedes English common law, so if the 1790 Act, et seq, applies in determining citizenship, then no interference or abrogation by a court is necessary, nor is it constitutional.

Yet, because of Justice Gray violating the constitution in creating his version of a 'citizen at birth,' Americans, INCLUDING OUR CONGRESSMEN, believe that any child born on magico soli, even the child of an illegal alien, is a U.S. citizen . . . some going so far, as Maddow probably believes, to be eligible to the presidency.

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

I of II

You and your team (and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark) have been citing Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888), a case that does not involve any issue concerning national citizenship, for quite some time in your effort to prove that the Founders used the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen.” Your reliance on that case is highly misplaced. In that case, the defendant-appellant argued that the State of Alabama did not have the power to pass a statute regulating his operation of a passenger train. For not getting the prescribed license to operate the train from the local authorities, the train engineer was charged, indicted, and jailed by the local sheriff. The defendant-appellant argued that the Alabama statute, since it regulated passenger train transportation, infringed upon Congress’s exclusive power over interstate commerce. The Court held that the state of Alabama had the power to pass the statue and criminally punish the defendant-appellant for violating it and that the statute did not infringe on Congress’s exclusive power over interstate commerce and denied the writ of error and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama.

In the decision, the court explained that the matter of regulating passenger trains and their carriage is a local matter belonging to the States. The court explained that in the absence of any Congressional Act preempting the field, the State has all the power to make all the necessary laws to protect the safety and welfare of the people using the trains within its borders, even if that regulation should incidentally affect interstate commerce.

This statement does not prove in any way that the English common law is the law that provides the rule of decision for defining an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The court only explained that in that case there was no applicable federal common law that could serve to displace the state statute. The court further said that the states do use common law for their local matters which they adopted from the English common law and that in the absence of any state statute abrogating that law, that common law provides the rules of decision. So the case is referring to the common law that the states apply to resolve their local issues, not to a common law that may apply on the national level.

The court explained that there could be an exception to the statement that there is no common law of the United States. It said that the exception arises in the area of construction of the Constitution and federal statutes. Here, there could be a body of federal common law developed from the court construing a provision of the constitution or statute which is framed in the language of the English common law. The court said that such construction of these provisions would produce a body of federal common law that would be binding on the national level. The court also said that the Alabama statute still provided the rule of decision in the case of regulating passenger trains in Alabama and did not fall under the exception.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

It is telling that the Court stated: “In cases, also, arising under the lex mercatoria, or law-merchant, by reason of its international character, this court has held itself less bound by the decisions of the state courts than in other cases. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1; Carpenter v. Insurance Co., Id. 495; Oates Bank, 100 U. S. 239; Railroad Co. v Bank, 102 U. S. 14.” Hence, the court stated that on international matters, the Federal court will not be bound by any state law and rather will apply federal law. We know that that federal law could be the Constitution, a treaty, a Congressional statute, the law of nations, or even federal common law. Nor does the Constitution itself on its face tell us that the “natural born Citizen” clause is “framed in the language of the English common law.” The issue is whether the clause should be interpreted by the English common law and we cannot conclude that it should simply because this case, which limits itself to matters pertaining to state local legal issues and itself states there are exceptions to the locality rule when it comes to matters of international import, makes a sweeping statement that the Constitution’s “provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

On the contrary, citizenship is not a matter controlled in the first instance by municipal law. In the absence of a constitutional provision or Congressional Acts which provide the rule of decision and proper guidance, historically citizenship has fallen under the law of nations and federal common law. The law of nations “acts everywhere proprio rigore, whenever it is not altered or modified by particular national statutes, or usages not inconsistent with its great and fundamental principles. Hensfield’s Case, 11 F.Cas. 1099 (C.C.D.Pa. 1793 (No. 6,360) (argument of counsel, Peter Du Ponceau). This fact is confirmed by our United States Supreme Court (except for Wong Kim Ark which applied the old English common law to define a “citizen of the United States” but the law of nations definition to define a “natural born Citizen”) which during our history has always applied public law or the law of nation to resolved issues concerning national citizenship. I have been arguing this point for some time, advising that the Framers did not rely on English common law to define national citizenship but rather natural law and the law of nations which became federal common law. I have added that on local state matters, the states have continued to be guided by carefully selected principles of the English common law. See Siminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1966) (J. Souter, dissenting) (the Founders were hostile to receiving English common law as federal law for “the political systems of the new Republic, explaining that there was no notion of a federal government under the English common law prior to the adoption of the Constitution and that they were very sensitive to the division of power between the states and the federal government). James Monroe summarized it best when he said in 1802 that “the application of the principles of the English common law to our constitution” should be considered “good cause for impeachment.”

In short, the Alabama v. Smith decision does not prove that the “natural born Citizen” clause is to be defined under the English common law rather than under the law of nations.

Texoma said...

10:20am Hawaii time. Any news?

Puzo1 said...

Here is an update on Orly Taitz. She was denied access to the birth records in Hawaii. She has filed an order to show cause in Federal District Court in Hawaii. While Orly asked that there be an emergency hearing tomorrow, Tuesday, August 9, 2011, because her experts will be flying back home tomorrow, the Court set the hearing down for September 14, 2011, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before Judge Richard L. Puglisi.

Read the full details at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/08/orly-update-attorney-taitz-now-at.html .

paraleaglenm said...

First, we are all amiss for not thanking Mr. Apuzzo for his attention in this matter, and sharing his time, resources, and expertise as an attorney at law.

Here is Justice Gray's stare decisis in Elk:

Cf. The Greisser case in Chief Justice Fuller's dissent.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

"The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306. This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being
naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. (p. 111)

It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992." (p. 103)

In this blog are some quotes of early U.S. jurists decrying reliance on English common law. http://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/who-is-a-citizen-at-birth-or-a-natural-born-citizen/

In other blogs, I cite early U.S. common law, as Mr. Apuzzo has done (1793) limiting the authority of English law.

MIDDLE CLASS GUY said...

Does anyone know any background on The Honorable Richard L. Puglisi? Political leanings, previous rulings, etc.

juniper55 said...

Any thoughts on why the Ninth Circuit hasn't responded yet to W. Drake/P. Barnett v Obama cases?

Is three months usual?

Is Orly Taitz getting credible legal help or is she off on her own entirely?

Latest filing with DC Circuit seems different in timbre.

Waiting for the DEMOCRATS to finally wake up and "discover" that their manchild messiah is not eligible to be President before he takes the whole Dem ship down with him...

Carlyle said...

To me it seems that what Rachel Maddow did was not illegal. The MSM appears to be a law unto itself and is not answerable to anybody.

I believe The Left would claim that anything RM does pales in comparison to Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck.

And I think this is the crux of the problem. Unless we can find a way to FORCE the MSM to be honest and thorough, I think the country is doomed.

I don't wish to be a pessimist, but our form of government can ONLY work with an informed citizenry.

Which we do not have right now. The is the root problem - the nut and core of all our current problems and issues.

cfkerchner said...

Listen to CDR Kerchner (Ret) on the Terry Lakin Action Fund radio show via PodCast at: http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/images/stories/audio/tlafaug08.2011-16kbpsva.mp3

Donations to help CDR Kerchner's print media efforts to expose the criminal and usurper Obama can be made at:
ProtectOurLiberty.org
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Puzo1 said...

Listen to Commander Charles Kerchner on the military officer's oath to defend and protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and on the LTC Terry Lakin case of military injustice. Commander Kerchner gave his interview on August 8, 2011, for the Terry Lakin Action Fund Radio Show, hosted by David Moxley.

Commander Kerchner tells us that with Obama sitting in the Office of President and Commander in Chief, we are for the first time in our history confronted with a domestic enemy.

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/cdr-charles-kerchner-ret-will-be-on-the-terry-lakin-action-fund-radio-show-hosted-by-david-moxley-monday-8-aug-2011-3-pm-et/

js said...

once upon a time...journalism was flush with ideals and values...

today...most of those folks just dont have a clue what those words even mean...let alone...how its supposed to guide thier conduct

Dixhistory said...

Carlyle said...

I agree with him. Those in power care not about our Republic and the law. Only the informed people who care about such things can change it.

The media and most people in this country don't care about our Republic or the law.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin

We are supposed to live in a Republic not a democracy!

Tex -

Dixhistory said...

Mario and Charles I hope you will post this link:


About half way down is this:
The Proper Suit Which No One Has Yet Brought



TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE (SLAVERY)
by Paul Guthrie
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/11/the-real-revolution/

Mairi said...

I am HOPING that despite ALL that you and the Commander have already done.....and I do mean ALL!......you will consider the information that Jedi Pauly has here:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/11/the-real-revolution/

and perhaps collaborate with him.....? The selfless contributions by you and the Commander to "right the wrong" is an inspiration! I'm betting that you are more than willing to help with any legal remedy that will end the crisis we are entangled in. Mario, I BELIEVE you and the Commander are JUST the two Patriots Jedi Pauly could use in his legal arsenal!

Puzo1 said...

Dixhistory and Mairi,

See my response to Jedi Pauly on this blog entitled, Jedi Pauly: The False Flag Obot, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/08/jedi-pauly-false-flag-obot.html.

As you can see, I will not be joining Jedi Pauly in any of his false efforts. I cannot speak for Commander Kerchner.

MichaelN said...

Atticus Finch wrote:
"Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964)

As such, lawyer drafters who studied English common law
wrote the Constitution using English common law language."

Since you rely so much on English common law, then what say you ......

The English had a monarchical system, with the common folk as subjects to a sovereign, where USA was a republic with the common folk as collective sovereigns.

Re: Calvin's case & English common law....

"2. For the Laws: 1. That ligeance, or obedience of the subject to the Sovereign, is due by the Law of nature: 2. That this Law of nature is part of the Laws of England: 3. That the Law of nature was before any judicial or municipal Law in the world: 4. That the Law of nature is immutable and cannot be changed."

and

"2. There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright,"

Atticus, what did Lord Coke mean by 'nature & birthright'???

What did Lord Coke mean by.....

"Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right..."???

and by this ...

"that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject...." ???

Our Founding Truth said...

She is clueless about Article I, section 8, The Law of Nations, just as most every politician is. What a disgrace.