OBJECTION 3 IN RE OBAMA nKri shauser From: 'rem 'rreaey an behalf of wee sos serrl; Monday, September ro, 2012 4 se PM Te; Bryan Caskey ce; Ryan Kriegsnauser Sub|ec\: FW ra laaraelr obaraa's cerlrfieare ol Ncminslinn see forwarded below TOM TREACY ,\\~l~Ir\llv In lv! Smrr; Karrsas Seererary bf Slare Ollree bulls ks rev ,\re Ks lim Are von Regrsrered ro \/ore? Learn all about the new electron law at com From: Jo sem: Merrdar, 10, 2012 434 PM Tn: WEB SOS Subject: Formal objecdno no Barack 0bama`s Certiicame of Nomination ro me a ebreerrerr ro rlre fer- Barack Obama KSA 25-308, grverr an allowance urar rwe days Lhe dale bf Lhe (Sept 6) fell rrperr a Saturday and rlre to access are to access Lhe effree of Lhe seererary of srare Ifile ebreerrerr an expeerarrerr of clraprer 25 3, wlrreb exceptions for (see KSA 25-305), I conxesl the nomination of Barack Obama under KSA 25-l436(a) as referenced KSA The causes for cblecnion under Lllis secuon as to any office may be any uf Lhose causes listed ln A 25-1346, and ameudlueuls lherelo Par! A of arucle 1436 says The person to Whom a of election was issued was ineligible lo hold such office al lhe lnne of the electron," or in this case, al Llle Lime of the nomination Baraelr Obama rs legal precedents lrelrl by rlre sraree Desprre ,reprrlar rarseerreeprrerrs rerrerrerl rlre rlre Supreme bas rbar Llxe fer- the affree of persons lo be born this to wbe ar-e bella us. lo a U.s, farber 'rbre was established in rlre Mlnoz V. Happersell, in 1875 wlrrelr sarrl aninrlwe nomo; "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." There has been legal confusion in some other state's administrative courts that a subsequent ruling, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), somehow changed the definition of natural-born citizen so as to apply to anyone and everyone who is born in the U.S. without regard to the citizenship of the parents. This is simply not true. That decision, while establishing such a definition for 14th amendment citizenship at birth, made a clear distinction in adhering to and by affirming the Minor ruling in saying that the Constution does not say who shall be naturalborn citizens. This means that the 14th amendment does not define natural-born citizenship. In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." There is further unanimous legal precedent that Minor v. Happersett and not U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark defines natural-born citizenship, specifically in reference to presidential eligibility. This precedent is in the 1913 ruling, Luria v. United States, when the court exclusively cited Minor, with no mention of the Wong Kim Ark ruling, even though it was a more recent ruling and could have been cited if it was the controlling decision. Obviously the Supreme Court did not think it was. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. In each of these Supreme Court decisions, as well as variety of others such as The Venus, Shanks v. Dupont, Ex Parte Reynolds, Perkins v. Elg; all natural citizenship at birth is due strictly to birth on U.S. soil to citizen parents. The 14th amendment does not redefine this type of citizenship, and it cannot do so because naturalized citizens have all the same rights as 14th amendment birth citizens through the equal protection clause. This is why the Luria decision did NOT cite Wong Kim Ark to define presidential eligibility. To do so would have meant that naturalized citizens would be eligible for president. Instead, the Luria ruling affirms that the criteria for natural-born citizenship for presidential eligibility is defined outside of the 14th amendment and outside of the Constitution. Instead, it falls under the law of nations rule of native citizenship (as cited in The Venus decision and in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, among others), which is due to birth within a country to parents who are citizens. Our nation's founders wanted to prevent our president from having any citizenship conflicts due to parents who were not citizens and who did not intend to become citizens. Barack Obama, according to multiple sources, was not born to a citizen father. His father was never even admitted to this country as a resident alien. Barack Obama Sr. retained his British and Kenyan citizenship and passed them onto his son, which Mr. Obama has publicly claimed on his Fight the Smears website. The Supreme Court specified that natural-born citizenship inherently excludes dual citizenship through a citation in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (which was citing U.S. v Rhodes, noting that one could only be a British subject or a natural-born citizen, and not hold both citizenships): All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Despite several lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's Constitutional eligibility and place of birth, Mr. Obama has failed to provide any valid, certified documentary evidence to legally establish birth in this country, much less to citizen parents. Further there is substantial evidence showing that much of Mr. Obama's alleged birth certificates have been forged or doctored, and have not been confirmed as legally valid, true and accurate. In terms of the legal precedent expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, this doesn't matter, We have a longstanding legal precedent through the U.S. Supreme Court, which is our nation's highest judicial authority. Under the court's definition, Barack Obama is not Constitutionally eligible for the office of president. The appearance of his name on any ballot is unconstitutional and illegitimate. As a registered voter in the state of Kansas with the ? Exhibit No. 000104 slaunosy to objeeriou to \h1s nommauon, I ask that Mn. Obama's name be excluced and/or remov?d from any and all Kansas ballots, and 1 f\\1\herrcques\ an-nngn this objechou mai any votes Cast for candidate, by isgisnsasd or by ms Kansas electoral college, are nm counted. Thank you ins Monigasnsn-y From: Bryan Caskey To 3 se PM snh|ss?= at Nnmiasmsn - public inspection Dear Mr. Montgomery: rnsak yan for samsung the Kansas secretary nffias. The ZDIZ certificate of nomination for President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden is public record I have attached the certificate to this email. If you have additional questions or need further assistance, please Contact me. siaasfeiy, BRYAN A, CASKEY i Ass|s\an\ Elsmen Dnssisr Kansas snsmafy oi sim i Pi sas ks gov Mennmali-1a||_ tzo SW loin i Topeka Ks 5061271594 Fl'0lYlI .106 ss/sz: Manda" ILL 2012 ms PM rv: was sos swim; carp//rms - mspm/an Hn rm sawn, sa. zsfsuss n/nnmmansn /sf aananfafss samsk Obama ana /aa anim 1/mm,/1 slsmanss mms. gl mamrand mn an Wulf/ nm Assn plaz :asf nam(/sy. 1s sr ta Wm nm 0/mar znanw Man/amass, Kansas 3 aninnws nooms Objection to the Certificate of Nomination of Barack Obama to appear on Kansas General Election Ballot filed by Joe Montgomery, Manhattan This document is to submit a formal objection to the certificate of nomination for Barack Obama under KSA 25---308, specifically through KSA 25---1436(a) as referenced through KSA 25---308(e): "The causes for objection under this section as to any office may be any of those causes listed in K.S.A. 25---1346, and amendments thereto." Part A of article 1436 says: "(a) The person to whom a certificate of election was issued was ineligible to hold such office at the time of the election;" or in this case, at the time of the nomination. A. Barack Obama is ineligible through multiple legal precedents established, held and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. Despite popular misconceptions reported in the media, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the eligibility requirement for the office of president requires persons to be born in this country to parents who are both U.S. citizens, although more specifically to a U.S. citizen father. This definition was established in the landmark ruling, Minor v. Happersett, in 1875 which said: "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." B. There is misinformation and legal confusion that a subsequent ruling, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), somehow changed the definition of natural---born citizen so as to apply to anyone and everyone who is born in the U.S. without regard to the citizenship of the parents. This is simply not true. That decision, while establishing such a definition for 14th amendment citizenship at birth, made a clear distinction in adhering to and by affirming the Minor ruling in saying that the Constitution does not say who shall be natural---born citizens. This means that the 14th amendment does not define natural---born citizenship. In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural---born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." C. There is a unanimous legal precedent that Minor v. Happersett and not U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark defines natural---born citizenship, specifically in reference to presidential eligibility. This precedent is in the 1913 ruling, Luria v. United States, when the court exclusively cited Minor, with no mention of the Wong Kim Ark ruling, even though it was a more recent ruling and could have been cited if it was the controlling decision. Obviously the Supreme Court did not think it was. Exhibit No. 000106 Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. In each of these Supreme Court decisions, as well as variety of others such as The Venus, Shanks v. Dupont, Ex Parte Reynolds, Perkins v. Elg (see Appendices attached) all natural citizenship at birth is due strictly to birth on U.S. soil to citizen parents. The 14th amendment does not redefine this type of citizenship, and it cannot do so because naturalized citizens have all the same rights as 14th amendment birth citizens through the equal protection clause. This is why the Luria decision did NOT cite Wong Kim Ark to define presidential eligibility. To do so would have meant that naturalized citizens would be eligible for president. Instead, the Luria ruling affirms that the criteria for natural---born citizenship for presidential eligibility is defined outside of the 14th amendment and outside of the Constitution. Instead, it falls under the law of nations rule of native citizenship (as cited in The Venus decision and in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, among others), which is due to birth within a country to parents who are citizens. Our nation's founders wanted to prevent our president from having any citizenship conflicts due to parents who were not citizens and who did not intend to become citizens. D. Birth), was not born to a citizen father. His father was never even admitted to this country as a resident alien (see Attached documentation in Appendix D). Barack Obama Sr. retained his British and Kenyan citizenship and passed them onto his son, which Mr. Obama has publicly claimed on his Fight the Smears website (which has now been removed). The citation said: When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act g s children. E. The Supreme Court specified that natural---born citizenship inherently excludes dual citizenship through a citation in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (which was citing U.S. v Rhodes, noting that one could only be a British subject or a natural---born citizen, and not hold both citizenships): All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural---born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural---born citizens. F. Despite several lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's Constitutional eligibility and place of birth, Mr. Obama has failed to provide any valid, certified documentary evidence to legally establish birth in this country, much less to citizen parents. Further there is substantial evidence showing that much of Mr. Obama's alleged birth certificates have been forged or doctored, and have not been confirmed as legally valid, true and accurate. In terms of the legal precedent expressed by the U.S. Exhibit No. 000107 Supreme Court, this doesn't matter. We have a longstanding legal precedent through the U.S. Supreme Court, which is our nation's highest judicial authority. Under the Supreme Court's definition, Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible for the office of president. The appearance of his name on any ballot is unconstitutional and illegitimate. The state of Kansas has the right and responsibility through Article I of the Constitution and through the 10th amendment to administer the general ballots. G. As a registered voter in the state of Kansas with the statutory right to objection to this nomination, I ask that Mr. Obama's name be excluded and/or removed from any and all Kansas ballots, and I further request through this objection that any votes cast for this candidate, either by registered voters or by the Kansas electoral college, are not counted. Appendix A: Caselaw --- U.S. Supreme Court Cases that define presidential eligibility and natural---born citizenship as pertains to the Article II requirement for office 1. Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913) Argued April 23, 1913, Decided October 20, 1913, 231 U.S. 9 (Note: This case specifies that presidential eligibility was addressed in previous Supreme Court case, most notably in Minor v. Happersett. It makes a distinction between naturalized and native citizens by pointing to Minor and others, but NOT to Wong Kim Ark. Minor defined native citizens as those born in the country to citizen parents. Because of the equal protection clause, naturalized citizens should have the same rights as native citizens under the th 14 amendment, which would include presidential eligibility, but the court effectively denies this possibility by th pointing to a decision that defined natural---born citizenship OUTSIDE of the 14 amendment. Wong Kim Ark defined th th native citizenship via the 14 amendment by requiring permanent residence and domicil to satisfy the 14 th amendment. Children born to citizen parents, as was noted by Minor, do NOT need the 14 amendment in order to be U.S. citizens.) Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/231/9/case.html Exhibit No. 000108 2. Minor v. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 --------- Decided: March 29, 1875 (Note: Vir th a citizen of the United States through the 14 amendment. The Court rejected her argument by explaining she was already a natural---born citizen, which ironically would have given her the right to run for president. The court says there are no doubts about the citizenship of natural---born citizens because they are born in the country to citizen parents, but that there are doubts about those who are born in the country without reference to the citizenship of their parents. It separates these into two classes of citizens, but only one of the classes is characterized as natural--- th born. This was a unanimous decision and there was no disagreement that the 14 amendment did not confer citizenship to V. Minor. The court discussed other ways persons could become citizens, but in the end, they could find no right to vote by virtue of being a citizen, thus no reason to apply the equal protection clause.) 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 [p168] 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. --- --- --- The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html 3. United States v. Wong Kim Ark APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --------- Decided: March 28, 1898 immigrant, and his mother was an emigrant, divorcing Obama Sr. before he was deported, but later marrying an th Lolo Soetoro with who she moved to Indonesia.). Ark was claiming to be a native citizen through the 14 Exhibit No. 000109 amendment, but a treaty with China barred Chinese nationals and their children from becoming citizens of foreign countries. In a split decision, the court reviewed English common law on citizenship at great length, and concluded diction of the United the children of Indians, foreign ministers and enemy combatants, but the court did not redefine natural---born citizenship. Instead it affirmed the Minor decision by saying it relied on a definition of natural---born citizenship that th falls outside of the 14 amendment (which it quoted verbatim), and then by giving the holding in Minor on the basis of being born to citizen parents. It also cites a ruling that says the one can either be born a U.S. citizen or born a citizen of Great Britain when the as a permanent that said his citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948). In the citations below, Justice Horace Gray defers to the unanimous Minor decision in showing how it defined natural---born citizen as a separate class When it says the Constitution does not say who shall be th natural---born citizens, this means the 14 amendment does not define natural---born citizens. In another quote it shows that the children of aliens, whether white or black, were not considered as being subject to the jurisdiction UNLESS they were permanently domiciled in the U.S. This would exclude the child of an alien who was not admitted th into this country as a permanent resident. I have highlighted, too, where it says the 14 amendment ONLY applies to the children born here of resident aliens. Mr. Obama was not.) In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural---born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." --- --- --- That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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. Exhibit No. 000110 Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166---168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship. --- --- --- In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural---born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural---born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution. --- --- --- In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and, in an opinion delivered by Justice Van Syckel with the concurrence of Chief Justice Beasley, said: The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race. The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized or in any way have become entitled to the right of citizenship. The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens. The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment, by the language, "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was intended [p693] to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time pertained to the white race. Benny v. O'Brien (1895), 29 Vroom (58 N.J.Law), 36, 39, 40. Exhibit No. 000111 The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural---born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural---born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html (Note: The dissent agreed that the children of resident aliens could become citizens at birth through the 14 amendment, but it made the same distinction as the majority in defining natural---born citizens by birth to citizen Court.) th From the dissent in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark: Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: The natives, or natural---born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html Exhibit No. 000112 4. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS o define Also, it notes that there are differences in the rights of citizens, especially the native citizens, which in their terminology only meant those born to citizen parents.) The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. --- --- --- Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." "The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages." http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html Exhibit No. 000113 5. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 99 99 (1830) ON POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT CERTIFIED BY JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (Note: This is a decision that notes that the loyalty of the father determines the citizenship of the child. They did not believe in the idea that simply being born on the soil would make someone a U.S. citizen, UNLESS the parent declared an intention to become a permanent resident. Note how the court cites Vattel again.) The question then arises as to what was the operation of the treaty upon his son, the demandant, who was then an infant of tender years and incapable of any election on his own part. It appears to me that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219, and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject. --- --- --- That if he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, and that it makes no difference in this respect whether or not parents had at the time of his birth elected to become citizens of the State of New York by manifesting an intention of becoming permanently members thereof in the sense which I have endeavored to explain. --- --- --- That if the demandant was born after 15 September, 1776, and could be deemed (as I cannot admit) a citizen of the State of New York in virtue of his parents having, before the time of his birth, elected to become citizens of that state, still his national character was derivative from his parents, and was under the peculiar circumstances of this case, liable to be changed during the Revolutionary War, and that if his parents reverted to their original character as British subjects and adhered to the British Crown, his allegiance was finally fixed with theirs by the treaty of peace. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/case.html 6. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA (Note: This decision has some of the same issues as Inglis, but it specifically relies on a treaty to say those who are y were British subjects. If they were loyal to the United States, the children would be natural---born citizens. This shows that the founders believed you could be born on U.S. soil and NOT automatically be a U.S. citizen. Under this treaty, Exhibit No. 000114 Mr. Obama would be a British subject, which again, echoes what he cited on his website about his citizenship being governed by a British nationality act. Further, note the passage about (or married woman) did not have their citizenship protected under publi which says children follow the citizenship of the father.) The Treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between states and the inhabitants thereof. The incapacities of femes covert provided by the common law apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. These political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations. --- --- --- If Ann Scott was of age before December, 1782, as she remained in South Carolina until that time, her birth and residence must be deemed to constitute her, by election, a citizen of South Carolina while she remained in that state. If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/242/case.html 7. U.S. Supreme Court LOCKWOOD, EX PARTE, 154 U.S. 116 (1894) (Note: This decision cites Minor and references very clearly that persons born in the country to citizen parents do th not need the 14 amendment to be citizens, because they have always been considered citizens, as much before the th adoption of the amendment, as since. This shows how the 14 amendment did not affect the citizenship or definition of natural---born citizenship.) In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of Exhibit No. 000115 the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizons of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi---in/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=154 &invol=116 8. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (Note: Even in a more modern case, the court is consistent that when the parents are citizens, with two examples of parents who naturalized before the birth of their c The court has always been consistent on this.) The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States. Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden, where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. --- --- --- The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. --- --- --- The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the Exhibit No. 000116 son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/325/case.html Appendix B: Legal mistakes made by a state appeals court in a challenge against Mr. Obama Ankeny v. Daniels COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, Nov. 12, 2009 (Note: The plaintiffs in the case were challenging that the governor of Indiana failed to verify the constitutional eligibility of both McCain and Obama. While the plaintiffs were correct on the legal issues, they were found not to have cited uce consistent Supreme Court precedents , especially since the Supreme Court supersedes state courts. In the following quotes, the Indiana Appeals Court tries to downplay citatio decisions pertaining to U.S. citizenship. The citations to nineteenth century congressional debate were actually th quotes from the authors of the 14 amendment, but the Indiana court felt that it was not significant, despite its th own reliance on the 14 amendment to reject the appeal.) The bases of the Plaintiffs arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The 11 11 Plaintiffs do not provide pinpoint citations to the congressional debate quotations to which they cite. (Note: In the passage below, the court notes the two different references to citizenship from the Constitution and th then cites Minor, ignoring that it says the 14 amendment does not say who shall be natural---born citizens. This court tries to make the case that the citizenship of those persons born to alien parents was left open for being natural---born citizens, but this is incorrect, because the characterization was exclusively applied to only one class of citizens: those born to citizen parents. There would be no reason to do this if the characterization could apply to anyone and everyone born in the U.S.) Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution governs who is a United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . t to assume the United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167 (1874). In Minor, written only six years after the Exhibit No. 000117 not, in words, say who shall be natural---born citizens 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 necessa Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12 (Note: The court footnotes its rationale for claiming this issue was left open, but a reading of Minor shows that the court contemplated ALL scenarios that were known at the time for becoming citizens.) 12 Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom. (Note: The passage below draws an invisible conclusion that the court admits by way of footnote is not supported by the actual decision it cites. It also says the difference between natural born and naturalized is somehow irrelevant and immaterial. This is contradicted in Luria v. United States, which says the difference is material to presidential eligibility. And by law, in Kansas KSA 25---1436(a), eligibility is material for challenges to certifications of nominations and elections. There is a material difference to voters because the natural---born citizenship requirement exists to prevent conflicts of interest with persons who have ties to other countries. Below, the Indiana court says that the Wong Kim Ark decision NEVER declared Ark to be a natural---born citizen, so there is NO guidance for believing that being born in the country is sufficient for being a natural---born citizen. He might have been technically eligible to run for Congress, but NOT for president. In contrast, Virginia Minor would have been eligible for president. Mr. Obama is not.) Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States of their parents. 14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaint s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty--- s history (the forty---four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478. (Note: the Supreme Court in several citations as the ultimate, consistent authority behind my objection. The Indiana court said the Ankeny citatio ---born citizen, but this simply is not true. The Indiana court failed to cite Luria v. United States or the many other decisions I have cited. They failed to recognize that Minor considered other scenarios for becoming citizens, but only characterized one of those scenarios exclusively as natural---born. And the Indiana court failed to acknowledge that the Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed the Minor definition of NBC, which I showed in the previous appendix.) Exhibit No. 000118 The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, arguments fall ---fact need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf Appendix C: Federal Rules of Evidence, self---authenticating documents and ---authenticating documents. (Note: Below is a citation from the Federal Rules of Evidence considered self--- e actually produced any in a court of law where they could be physically inspected for authenticity and/or challenged. So far, he has refused. There have been recent findings in the news that would explain why Mr. Obama refuses to produce said documentation in a court of law.) 1. Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self---Authenticating (4) Certified Copies of Public Records. A copy of an official record or a copy of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law if the copy is certified as correct by: (A) the custodian or another person authorized to make the certification; or (B) a certificate that complies with Rule 902(1), (2), or (3), a federal statute, or a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902 2. Hollister v. Soetoro,United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Note: The following citation shows a very odd footnote. In it, Mr. for judicial notice regarding Mr. Mr. Obama claimed to have this document in his possession, which should have been submitted with the motion. The failure to do so is incriminating. t one of these sources doctored its photographic evidence, which was taken five months earlier than claimed in the story. The source has never explained this discrepancy, but instead scrubbed the incriminating data from its photographs. sel can ask a judge to take judicial notice that an alleged certificate was produced on the Internet, then it should also be allowable to take Exhibit No. 000119 easier just to submit actual documents under the Federal Rules of evidence.) Motion to Dismiss filed by Robert F. Bauer on January 26, 2009 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 19 http://www.factcheck.org/elections---2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they tar Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 3. Swensson---Powell---Farrar---Welden---vs---Obama, Feb. 3. 2012 (Note: In this ballot challenge, Mr. he and his client would not honor a subpoena for Mr. would be considered self---authenticating if submitted to the court. They refused to do this, even after being advised by Secretary Kemp to submit evidence.) Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril. the challenge was dismissed, in part based on a citation of Ankney v. Daniels, rather than a direct citation to any Supreme Court precedent. The Ankeny v. Daniels case did NOT ever declare Obama to be eligible for office, but instead only upheld that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The dicta in a state appeals case does NOT supersede the Supreme Court preced Malihi noted neither Obama nor his Attorney Michael Jablonski appeared or answered and said ordinarily the court would enter a default judgment against a party that fails to participate in any stage of the proceeding. Exhibit No. 000120 http://www.examiner.com/article/georgia---judge---rules---obama---eligible---for---ballot---as--- natural---born---citizen 4. DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ., BRIAN FEDORKA,LAURIE ROTH, LEAH LAX, and TOMMacLERAN versus DEMOCRAT PARTY OF MISSISSIPPI,SECRETARY OF STATE MISSISSIPPI,BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA, OBAMA FOR AMERICA, NANCI PELOSI,DR. ALVIN ONAKA, LORETTA FUDDY,MICHAEL ASTRUE, JOHN DOES, JOHNDOES 1---100 Motion to Supplement a previous Motion for Sanctions (Note: In the citation below, the Mississippi Democrat Executive Counsel asked for a letter of verification from the Hawaii Department of Health to Ph.D., the Hawaii registrar, did not do this, but only said that information that was submitted by the MDEC and as is posted online. Mr. Obama allegedly obtained TWO hard copies of this certificate. One of those could have been submitted as a self---authenticating document. Instead, this letter of verification fails to meet the standard as described in the Federal Rules of Evidence. As such, Mr. Obama has still refused to submit any legally verifiable documentation to prove that he is a natural--- born citizen.) 7. Pursuant to Sections 338---14.3 and 338---18 (g)(4), MDEC Counsel recently submitted a written request to the Hawaii Department of Health, seeking verification of the following: Hawaii State Department of Health. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president---obamas---long---form---birth--- certificate, a copy of which is attached to this request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live [B]irth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file See Exhibit 1 (MDEC Counsel Request to HI DOH for Verification of President Obama's Hawaiian Birth(May 26, 2012)). http://www.scribd.com/doc/96289285/Mississippi---Democratic---Party---Motion---v---Taitz 5. Purpura vs. Barack Obama (ballot challenge with New Jersey Secretary of State) Hearing held April 10, 2012 neither any hard copies need to be submitted to a court and are s birth certificate on the internet nor s s never suggested in this hearing as to what basis Mr. Obama would prove or document his eligibility. Counsel notes that even Mickey Mouse can be on the ballot. Ironically, Mickey could actually make a better Exhibit No. 000121 case of being a natural---born citizen than Mr. Obama can. My question is why there would be any reluctance to submit a document that is considered a standard document for establishin especially when a certified copy of such a document is considered to be self---authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence. It appears that counsel wants to avoid submitting a legally deficient document, since the plaintiffs were prepared to present evidence the document was forged.) president on the New Jersey ballot to publish, produce or release an official birth verified contrary evidence versus Obama that he does not have a verified, authentic birth certificate. New Jersey administrative judge: The document on the Internet is legally irrelevant to this case? Counsel: Yes. Judge: Counsel: Yes --- --- --- Counsel: this case is on the objectors to prove that the candidate is not eligible under New nsent of the candidate, you could have Mickey Mouse, per se, on this. Judge: And that has happened before. Video of hearing is linked here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_grIjyq5y---w Exhibit No. 000122 These documents show he was not admitted into this country as a resident alien or as a permanent immigrant, and this also documents , since there is no marriage license. Exhibit No. 000123 xv`_Iv YeITTLrtfV.-, VL4ff.. V-LVll! iVrwji.-- Tl41/Ella_.Vj . . . iV: -`A-jx VA 44*4 VV VV-VVoa_ . ?wJ" I liLGRy?-q-gyxgTVTV . . ,25.:,3155pj1o?` . V, 'ninzv . . wyv- :4 - L- 4;-r..ni{rsV.-uname ma s. .4 . V. 4__v isle AR-., in.2. ~jv;v;'r`lukl? r?"awkfini . {Fi- 4 .4'kirT;;x.1Av" Appendix E: Hawaii Department of Health verification letter that fails to say is required under the Federal Rules of Evidence cited previously. Exhibit No. 000127 Appendix F: Miscellaneous evidence calls into 1991 bio says Mr. Obama was born in Kenya. Such bios are prepared from material submitted by the subject of the bio, meaning Mr. Obama would have provided this biographical information. http://www.breitbart.com/Big---Government/2012/05/17/The---Vetting---Barack---Obama---Literary--- Agent---1991---Born---in---Kenya---Raised---Indonesia---Hawaii Exhibit No. 000128 Article from Kenyan East Standard, dated June 27, 2004: http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm Exhibit No. 000129 Nigerian Observer, October 15, 2009 http://www.nigerianobservernews.com/4112008/4112008/news/news1.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M7Rp_Ghv6k When we took our trip to our Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test. Exhibit No. 000130 ---Ng confused on which hospital her brother was born in. Hospital: http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/supreme.court/Exhibit_Charter_Schools_Rainbow_Edit ion_Newsletter.pdf Exhibit No. 000131 and as an Indonesian citizen (photo taken by Tatan Syuflana, an Associated Press photographer) have become a U.S. citizen. Exhibit No. 000132 Perkms Core 700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600 washington. D.C. 20005-3960 mom: 202.654.62oo I2, [Ax: 2?2_654_62" The Honorable Kris Kobach Kansas Secretary of State Memorial Hall, Floor l20 S.W. 10th Avenue Topeka, KS 66612- I 594 Re: Response to Objection to Democratic Party's Certificate of Nomination Dear Secretary Kobach: On behalf of President Obama, submit this brief response to the objection filed with the Kansas Secretary of State's Office on September 10, 2012 (the "Objection") by Joe Montgomery (the "Objector"). The Objection challenges the Democratic Party's Certificate of Nomination certifying Barack Obama as its nominee for President of the United States in the November 6, 2012 general election, and requests that Secretary prevent President Obama's name from appearing on any ballots in the State of Kansas in the November 6, 2012 general election. For the following reasons, the Objection Board should deny the Objection in its totality. The Objection raises only one argument for keeping President Obama off the ballot: according to the Objection, the President is not an eligible candidate for re-election because he is not a natural-bom citizen.] Like the scattered remnants of "birthers" in other proceedings, the Objector presents this argument despite a unanimous series of cases in federal and state courts that have unequivocally rejected the same factual and legal contentions, and also despite public records that have been released demonstrating conclusively that the President was born in Hawaii in 1961. These tired allegations are utterly baseless, and the Objector's arguments are entirely without merit. President Obama satisfies the requirements of Article ll ofthe United States Constitution, is eligible to serve as President of the United States, and is eligible to stand for re-election to that of`ficc. The Objection does not challenge any other aspects of the Certificate of Nomination, which complies with all required elements of K.S.A. 25-304: ?'All certificates of nomination shall be in writing, shall contain the name of each person nominated, with such person's residence and the office Ihr which nominated. Party certificates of nomination shall designate the political party which the convention, primary election or caucus making the nominations represented ANCHORAGE - BELLEVUE - BOISE - CHICAGO- DALLAS- DENVER - LOS ANGELES MADISON- NEW YORK PALO ALTO PHOENIX- PORTLAND- SAN DIEGO - SAN FRANCISCO- SEATTLE SHANGHAI - WASHINEQMMI 000133 Perkins Cole ur --1Av 0 AA7..A.ik; ilgyA..A A. A TW .A..AAA.AA V, II - -- - Am,- Exhibit N0. 000134