beth-wade

beth-wade 9 months ago

fgstone: Your post is actually good. However, can it be proved? And even if it can, can you force your own interpretation on any court of law and also force them to ignore eligibility precedents in the past and US statutory law? That's my point.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Glad you brought up old Leo, Don. Here's a letter he wrote to the Georgia Grand Jury, reprinted on Rapture Ready:
THE GEORGIA CITIZENS GRAND JURY MUST BE CONDEMNED.
I have received letters from the people who ran the citizens grand jury in Georgia, and while I appreciate their frustration in that our Government has failed to protect the Constitution by allowing a President to be sworn in who is not a "natural born citizen", I do not agree that this citizen's grand jury has any legal authority whatsoever to demand the removal of a sitting President or to even force the review of his qualifications.
The separation of powers in the Constitution has delegated that power to Congress who in turn enacted the District of Columbia Code provision for Quo Warranto. Sections 16-3501,16-3502, and 16-3503 are the only Constitutional means available to see the President removed or to even have him face an inquiry as to his eligibility. (See parts 1,2 and 3 of my legal brief on quo warranto.)
Furthermore, there is very disturbing language (thanks to Phil at The Right Side of Life for highlighting this today) used by this citizens grand jury which discusses the taking of property and suggest other violent means by which they intend to enforce their presentments. This language is frightening and totally illegal:
"The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury."
That's criminal insanity right there. Have people lost their minds?
Let it be known that I condemn any such activity as described above.
You can't protect the Constitution by destroying it. Just because somebody may have become President who isn't eligible does not give any citizen the right to take the law into their own hands and to form lynch mobs and confiscate property. There is a Constitutional way to challenge the president, but this citizens grand jury manifesto is not it.
We the people are getting beat up by criminal political actions which subvert the Constitution. If we are to fight back, we must do so within the boundaries of the Constitution. This is because Constitutional criminals are more than happy to see citizens violating the Constitutions. They can enforce your crimes with law enforcement. They can even put you on trial for issuing such language as that cited above.
But you can't do the same to them.
You will be squashed like a bug. Therefore you need to be smarter and more Constitutionally creative than they are. Find the path within the Document of the USA is no more. A true enemy of the Constituion will claim victory if the only way you can stop their crimes is by doing more damage to the Constituion. Either way, the Constitution is destroyed. Try to see that for God's sake.
Since the people who have brought this citizens grand jury have written to me and told me personally that my writing on the power of the citizens as grand jurors was their inspiration, I feel the need to disassociate myself from them and their objectives.
When I wrote of the subverted power of the Grand Jury as to bringing "presentment" in my articles;
The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government
Scotus on the unique power of grand jurors
...I was not doing so in regard to the POTUS eligibility issue. In fact, the first article above was written by me back in 2005 and published at my previous blog. This article had NOTHING to do with Obama's eligibility.
We are governed by our Constitution, not common law.
My grand jury 5th amendment "power of presentment" articles were meant to educate people as to their power ONCE SWORN IN AS A FEDERAL GRAND JUROR in a federal court.
The articles weren't meant to encourage citizens to form their own grand juries and prosecute at will. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution. And I am a true believer in the Constitution. Are you?

Donofrio goes on for quite some while, ending with
"If this citizens grand jury is citing my writing as inspiration, then they've clearly misunderstood my writing.
Leo C. Donofrio

beth-wade 9 months ago

Well, weturner. I totally agree with you. They've been in charge for quite a long time.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Excuse me, but I am informed about it. I am offended because I would actually like to discuss Ellen Brown's excellent article discussing suggestions and ways to keep our states from bankruptcy...a subject that I believe all of you might actually be interested in. My statements of belief are not based on partisan bias. They are based on my reading of the Constitution and the relevant case and statutory law. I would be arguing the same for any other candidate, including John McCain or Mitt Romney.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Actually, the Democrats didn't challenge McCain's eligibility. Alan Keyes did.

beth-wade 9 months ago

And of course you can PROVE that about both of us? Must be nice to try to intimidate other people with your hysteria.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Question: I believe that any court that would consider this question would have to consider other presidential candidates who have been ruled eligible to run. In that case, would your definition of "natural born" citizen apply to Mitt Romney? Not according to your arguments. George Romney, his father, was born in Mexico to two American born parents. So you must apply a standard here, folks. Mitt Romney unquestionable checked out with all you guys. And to top that off, his father, the Mexican-born George Romney, also ran for president once. Your definitions of presidential eligibility seem to be one-sided here. Plenty of court precedent and legal commentary out there to disagree with you.

beth-wade 9 months ago

I have dealt with the issue on myriad threads here. You are taking up unnecessary band width and time. And I, like you, have every right to express my opinion. And I LOVE hot potatoes. Why not join me?

beth-wade 9 months ago

My long form BC (a certified copy of the original made out in my mother's handwriting) does not contain the name of the doctor or the hospital. That hospital is long since gone. That doctor is long since dead. And most of the relatives that could have testified to the fact of my "Natural born" citizenship are deceased. So I guess this means I can never be eligible to run for president. Sob!

beth-wade 9 months ago

Could one of please post a separate listing requesting that all posts regarding our president's birth certificate be deleted ? This is just ridiculous and offensive.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Uh. You are now the spokesperson for all 300 million Americans?

beth-wade 9 months ago

Oh? And this didn't bother you while it was occurring under GWB and Chernoff?

beth-wade 9 months ago

Yawwn. And he knows a big word, too.

beth-wade 9 months ago

You are correct in that this is a republic. However, acting like a lynch mob is not becoming to anyone.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Well, do you feel better now? See a mental therapist.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Have to agree with john.claunch here. And certainly a president has to be a "natural born citizen" according to the constitution. But the supreme court has never ruled on the definition of such, and the insistence of this weird movement that only they and their obviously incompetent lawyers have the right to determine that definition is ludicrous. Also, the movement does not have the right to interpret or force their rigid definitions down the throats of everyone. There is a "dual citizen" argument for instance. But when we consider other presidential candidates who were ruled eligible to run for president, we run smack up against George Romney (Mitt's dad) who was actually born in Mexico. Thus he automatically received dual citizenship at birth. There was not this total hysteria that's going on now. We also need to consider that the Supreme Court would take a look at all case law and even at US Code as it has been interpreted over the years. Certainly this movement is citing such case law right and left. But if you consider case law from USC title 8, section 1401, the entire case of this movement against Obama falls completely apart. This is why it is so important for them to force their definitions on the rest of us. See, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he qualifies as a "natural born" even if his father was foreign. As if he was born in Kenya, Nigeria, or on Krypton, that's all right, too, so long as one of his parents was an American citizen who had lived in this country for a period or period of five years, two of those years after the age of 14. So we really have to rule that out with our arguments, right? That's current as of January of 2008. Lots of retroactive arguments in there, too. So I would be cautious about making demands of anyone.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Common Law Citizen's Grand Juries are unconstitutional and illegal as they are described in various internet postings. Even lawyers filing suit in court against President Obama have condemned them as criminal.

beth-wade 9 months ago

You might want to actually go and back a look at the Indonesian constitution and laws instead of continuing to regurgitate false statements. And you need to re-examine the Pakistan visa statement. Totally false. Neither you or anyone else can find evidence to support these charges.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Oh, now he was born in Nigeria? Gee, that's a new one. Are you sure he wasn't born on Krypton?

beth-wade 9 months ago

Many here are continuing to spew alread debunked lies and have nothing to back up their contentions. This is not the proper forum for this discussion. Please cease and desist.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Ronald: Do you truly support the Common Law Juries as they are described at www.1215.0rg? Do you support a "movement" of people who so dislike the president's policies that they advocate throwing out the Constitution in favor of the Magna Carta? Do you support groups who think their interpretation and only their interpretation of "natural born citizen" should be enforced by un-constitutional and blatantly illegal means? I have no objection to free speech arguments, but many of the lawsuits filed just don't have any value at all, and much of the venom that is being spewed doesn't stand up to careful examination. Certainly there were 2 years of examination and plenty of time to contact every single congressional representative. Not one single congressperson or senator raised a single objection to the certification of the election results.

beth-wade 9 months ago

I really did not come to this forum to see more spam about the birth certificate issue. I would suggest that all complaints or suggestions about that be taken somewhere else, such as to your elected representatives.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Actually, I am not incorrect on this issue. President Obama provided information sufficient to have the birth certificate illustrated officially certified by the state of Hawaii, and your elected officials did certify the election results.These are the constitutionally provided methods. This was enough to legally prove his eligibility. If you wish to make unsupported claims based on rumors and speculation, the burden of proof lies on you. You have no more standing or reason to demand any of the documents you are demanding than you have to demand to enter his bedroom and search his underwear drawer.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Actually, YOU must prove he is not. And the Natural Born Citizen argument doesn't cut it either. The Constitution is completely silent on that issue, but that are plenty of court cases and legal commentaries which are not. de Vattel is sometimes quoted by those who support your arguments. But refusing to look at other positions and other commentators and refusing to admit that this is a grey idea invalidates your arguments. May I suggest Lynch v. Clark, 3 N.y. Leg. Obs.236,1 Sand. Ch.583 (1844). That decision confirms that a child born to Canadian parents in 1819 does indeed retain American citizenship, even though her parents took her back to Canada. There is a long discussion on the "common Law" at the time. A direct quote: "Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor..." The discussion continues about the difference in American common law on this point and European common law. Another quote: "...I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen." Or you might be interested in the opinion of Attorney General Edward Bates, given in 1862. "We have NATURAL BORN citizens (Constitution 2,5) not made by law or otherwise, but BORN. And this class is the large majority...As they became citizens in the natural way, by BIRTH, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their OWN voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to DECEITIZENISE a citizen, who has become such either by the natural process of birth, or by the legal practice of adoption." And later: "And our Constitution, in speaking of NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society,that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are NATURAL members of the body politic. If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, PRIMA FACIE a citizens; AND HE WHO WOULD DENY IT MUST TAKE UPON HIMSELF THE BURDEN OF PROVING SOME GREAT DISENFRANCHISEMENT STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERRIDE THE "NATURAL BORN' right as recognized in the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive." And later:" And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation were it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the ALIENAGE of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10,1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provdies that "persons,"..."Persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered are are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.".....But for that act, children of our citizens who happen to be born at London, Paris, or Rome, while their parents are there on a private visit of pleasure or business, might be brought to the native home of their parents, only to find they were aliens...." And later: "It is an error to suppose that citizenship is ever heritary. It never "passes by descent." It is as original in the child as it was in his parents.".... You will find, over and over, that the terms "natural born" and "native-born" are used interchangeably. And these are only two of the many cases and commentaries that have been made on the subject. Plenty more are available.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Please. The Grand Juries are unlawful. They do not support the Constitution. They throw out the Constitution in favor of attempting to re-define the "common law" as the MAGNA CARTA. They threaten government officials who disagree with them, refuse to look at any evidence not supporting their pre-conceived notion, and refuse any attempt to take on the burden of proof. The "indictments" are not legal indictments. Reminds me very much of activities taken by the Republic of Texas back in the 90s. When some of those kooks finally actually started kidnapping people, there was a stand-off with the Texas Rangers at, I believe, Fort Davis. The ring leaders were tried, convicted, and rightfully imprisoned. Think before you get involved with this nonsense.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Might have something to do with the fact that many of you who buy into these conspiracy theories are driving the said institutions crazy so that they cannot function. Note the continued and completely unnecessary duplicate posts on this site dealing with the same question.

beth-wade 9 months ago

Some of you are doing nothing but being hysterical. The state of Hawaii has publicly certified the certificate as genuine. Congress has certified the election of President Obama. Speculation and conjecture are not proof of anything. And rumor and innuendo don't cut it either. Grow up. You are making wild and unsupported charges and demanding documents you have no legal standing to demand.

Categories

User Activity Stream

Comments Posted