Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored » Lawyers

Klayman on Gallup’s Freedom Friday

NBC — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 04:27:26 +0000

Now compare to the order by the Florida Supreme Court and notice how Larry’s description appears to be at odds with the actual order. Klayman is not taking it too well why courts have rejected his and the countless other cases and looks for ‘explanations’ that somehow these judges were corrupted… Fascinating and quite educational…

View this document on Scribd

Filed under: FL - Voeltz v Sos III, Florida, Larry Klayman, State Election Challenges

Wise v. Bennett (Ariz. Super. Ct.)

NBC — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 00:16:09 +0000

The Fogbow announces:

Arizona’s Politics blog has posted the motion for Sanctions and Attorney Fees submitted by the group seeking to recall Arpaio. It is posted as a series of images instead of as a single document so it’s difficult to read, but it looks like they are alleging the complaint is frivolous and asking for sanctions in the form of attorney fees, costs, and damages.

Another Klayman adventure Things are getting expensive…

Filed under: Larry Klayman

CA – Grinols v Obama – Orly not taking it too well

NBC — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:00:28 +0000

She has interpreted Judge England’s dismissal as an opportunity to file (once again) criminal complaints across our Nation, undeterred by her continued inabilities to submit admissible evidence, or a coherent argument.

Judge Morrison England: proper avenue is a criminal complaint. I am preparing a criminal complaint against Obama and his accomplices. It will be forwarded with some 200 pages of sworn affidavits and E-Verify and SSNVS reports of a stolen SSN by Obama to DAs. AGs and US attorneys around the country with a demand to convene grand juries. Video interview and full report to follow. I drove for 8 hours from Sacramento, will need to rest and will provide a full report later today I would appreciate donations to print copies of the book of exhibits and for the certified mail

She also is accusing those who may have been her few remaining ‘friends’ by calling them traitors and lacking in integrity

Tell Glenn Beck and Pamela Geller: if they are talking about censorship and lack of integrity, they need to look in the mirror. Demand that they start by reporting on Obama’s use of forged and stolen IDs. The most dangerous “sleeper” in the country is Obama. Corrupt governmental officials, members of Congress and media including Beck, Geller, Pollack, rest of the Breitbart team are committing treason by being criminally complicit in the cover up. They are equally accountable. If you want to solve the problem, go to the root of the problem. Fish stinks from the head

She also has ordered a transcript, which should be the source of lots of additional amusement.

I ordered the transcript of yesterday’s hearing before Judge England. I will post it. Be ready to blood boiling in veins, when you read it

Filed under: CA - Grinols v Electoral College, California, Code Orly, Orly Taitz

CA – Grinols v. Electoral College (E.D. Cal.)

NBC — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:13:13 +0000

Orly is back in court today, where she has been asked to present arguments relevant to five limited issues

“Oral argument will be limited to: (1) mootness, (2) standing, (3) political question doctrine, (4) the Speech and Debate Clause, and/or (5) service of process on defendants.”

Yet she filed another ex-parte motion, against the Court’s orders, and encouraged various ex-parte ‘generals’ to submit some kind of letter.

We can hope that justice will be served today.

Be prepared for a lot of ‘screeching’…

Update: 2:20PM EDT The hearing should soon be over soon. The Fogbow are standing by to report.

Update: 2:30PM EDT Dismissed, no sanctions (well one could hope that a judge would finally put an end to Orly’s follies but dismissed is exactly as expected)

Filed under: CA - Grinols v Electoral College, California, Code Orly, Orly Taitz

Punking the Puz’

NBC — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 03:28:07 +0000

I have been having some good time with Mario Apuzzo, whose musings where referred to by Judges as ‘lacking in merit’ and ‘academic only’.

It all started when I outlined how the appealing attorney had positioned the cause in error as “Did the lower court err in finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen?”. Mario responded claiming that I was making things up and that the term natural born was not even used in the lower Court ruling in Wong Kim Ark… Little did he know that I had transcribed the ruling in 2009 and placed it on my blog.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. December 10, 2012 at 6:58 pm (Quote) #

nbc: The Court in WKA by any credible interpretation did in fact rule that WKA was natural born. Even the dissenting judge understood. But you ignore the fact that the appealing attorney, who raised many of the same arguments you have raised, understood that the issue at hand was “did the lower court err in finding WKA to be natural born”. Anyone in those days understood that native birth citizenship would render one a natural born. What they were trying to argue is that he was not born under jurisdiction. Another failure.Come on Mario… THis is just getting too easy.

Come on nbc, you are just making stuff up about what the lower court held in Wong Kim Ark. There is not one word about “natural born” or “natural born Citizen” in the lower court in Wong Kim Ark.

So I replied:

And yet, the appealing attorney presented the issue of error as such. He understood that the lower court’s ruling effectively had declared WKA a NBC.

As to your statement about the lower court, I assume you have never read it?

“The petitioner belongs to the Chinese race, but he was born in Mendocino, in the state of California, in 1870. In 1879 he went to China, and returned to the port of San Francisco during the present month (September, 1884), and now seeks to land, claiming the right to do so as a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Citing Lynch v Clarke

After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general. understanding of. the legal profession, and the universal Impression of the public mind

Fail again. Really Mario, you should read these rulings. Both the lower court and the Supreme Court ruling put to rest any of your follies.

Oh, the court also denied your position;

The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority.

ROTFL…

Source: In re WONG KIM ARK (District Court, N. D. California. January 3, 1896.) No. 11,198.

Like taking candy from a baby… Only much more satisfying given Mario’s insistance that his ‘arguments’ clearly show how all the 8 or so courts/hearings in which they ruled against Mario’s position somehow should be taken seriously…

More about his self-contradictory position later.

The statement

The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen… (p.2)

and

The district court, following as being stare decisis the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing (10 Sawyer, 356), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizen by birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within The United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

Filed under: Educating the Confused, Mario Apuzzo

DC – Taitz v Astrue – SCOTUS – Did Orly fail to file petition for writ of certiorari?

NBC — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:59:08 +0000

In her latest follies with the Supreme Court, Orly is claiming that the clerks of the Court have been undermining her case. When she filed an emergency petition for stay with the Supreme Court, she was told that she had run out of time. While the Clerk apparently failed to realize that Orly had until November 7th to file her appeal in Taitz v Astrue, Orly failed to properly submit her petition for writ of Certiorari. At then end of November, Orly complained and received a letter stating that there was no order from the Clerk’s office denying the petition the right to file a petition for a writ of certiorari and that Orly had made no attempts to file such a petition. In her 12/08 letter to the Supreme Court, Orly ‘explains’:

In aforementioned letter from you Mr. Fossum provided incorrect information, specifically he stated that there was no order from the clerk’s office denying the “right by Petitioner to file a petition for a writ of certiorari” and that there was no attempt to file a writ of certiorari by the Plaintiff. Exhibit 1 December 3 letter from Clerk Sutter signed by Eric Fossum

1. Please, see attached two Federal Express receipts:

a. Exhibit 2. Federal Express Receipt showing a package delivered to SCOTUS on October 2, 2012 9:12 am signed by J Kouros.

b. Exhibit 3 Federal Express receipt showing a second package sent to SCOTUS on October 7, 2012 and delivered to SCOTUS on October 9, 2012 9:52 am and signed by D. Gamble.

The first package contained the emergency stay and the second package a letter explaining why the time had not expired. As far as I have been able to determine, Orly never filed an actual petition for writ of certiorari. The letter by Eric Fossum:

December 3,2012

Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

RE: Motion to Correct Erroneous Denial Taitz v. Astrue; USCA no. 11-5304

Dear Ms. Taitz:

In response to your submission, r’eceived December 3, 2012, a review of previous correspondences, as well as the dockel, indicates there was no attempt to file a petition
foraw t ofcertiora in tbe above-entitled case from the U.S. Cowt ofAppeals for the District of Columbia. Any such submission at this point would be out-of-time as the
petition was due on, or before November 7,2012. Rule 13.

A review of the docket indicates no order fiom the Office ofthe Clerk denying the ”right by the petitioner to file a petition for a writ of certiorari.”

The time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari does not run from the issuance of the mandate. Rule 13.3.

Your materials are herewith returned.

Filed under: Orly Taitz