Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh? They claim to have conducted over 1800 tests of different software/hardware combinations and were unable to recreate the artifacts found in the pdf.
They apparently missed this particular Xerox workstation.
Yes, a somewhat shocking oversight, as a quick analysis of scans from the Whitehouse shows that they used a Xerox Workcentre 7655 to scan in the President's and Vice-President's tax returns.
Shoddy detective work, I'd say... But not too late for Zullo and his Posse to correct their oversight and do their assigned duty. Arpaio himself is on the record that he wants to prove the certificate to be not fraudulent, so I am convinced that all efforts will be taken to clear the Posse's name
LOL.... Arpaio hasn't even bothered to read the alleged report from the handwriting expert.
Yeah... he's engaged.
The report is property of the private not-for profit organization headed by Zullo and is not part of any official investigation. Heck, Zullo did not even file his own affidavit as such. Instead it was filed by private citizen Zullo. Not as Zullo, director of the "(Maricopa County Sheriff's Cold Case Posse" 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Do not be confused by the name of the organization, it is a private non-profit with no direct ties to the Sheriff's office.
Arpaio has been wise to keep his distance to the work, and by stating that he has not even seen the 40 page report, he too can claim ignorance and plausible deniability.
Since the MCSO-CCP's members are not even official law enforcement officers, but rather can be assigned to work with properly qualified LEO's to investigate matters, we should be careful not to confuse the musings by Private citizen Zullo with the official position of Sheriff's Arpaio's office, and realize that the MCSO CCP is a non-profit entity with no direct ties to law enforcement.
For those interested in the topic of 501(c)(3) read more here
Those who understand the topic may also want to note that:
Quote:
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated.[30][31] An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status because its engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.[32]
Thomas Jefferson was a Natural Born Citizen, as he was born on U.S. soil of citizen parents.
Yes, birth on soil to citizen parents is a sufficient but not necessary condition to be considered a natural born citizen. As the Court in United States v Wong Kim Ark so carefully explained: A natural born citizen is anyone born on soil, subject to our jurisdiction, and those born abroad to citizen parents are not, under common law, natural born, but rather are naturalized citizens by statute.
I am looking forward to help people understand that the court explicitly rejected Vattel. I am sure most birthers are not familiar with the history of the case and its rulings.
The Supreme Court was faced with a lower court's decision, ruling that Wong Kim Ark was indeed a US citizen.
In order to determine if this was indeed the case, the court observed that our Constitution mentions citizenship in only a few places: the power of congress to provide for uniform rules of naturalization, the term citizens of the United States and the term natural born citizen.
Observing that there are thus two kinds of citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized, the court was faced with the statutes that denied citizenship to Wong Kim Ark through naturalization. Thus, in order to find that WKA was a citizen, they had to find that he was a natural born citizen.
The Court observed that the term Natural Born had been left undefined in the Constitution and ruled that therefore its meaning has to be found in the Common Law.
The Court then looked at the Common Law before during and after the revolution and found that the term "natural born" before the revolution was defined in English Common Law.
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The court then ruled that
Quote:
The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
The same rule was in force...
The Court presents an incredible wealth of analysis which I am more than happy to dive into with those interested but for the moment I'd like to focus on the following
The appellants had argued that under our Common Law it was the rule of Jus Sanguinis that had prevailed and the court rejected this argument, observing that
Quote:
"The acquisition," says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) "of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments."
and
Quote:
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
Finally the court looked at the 14th Amendment and found it to be declarative of Common Law and ruled
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
Hope this helps.
Last edited by native born citizen; 06-29-2013 at 01:13 PM..
Yes, birth on soil to citizen parents is a sufficient but not necessary condition to be considered a natural born citizen. As the Court in United States v Wong Kim Ark so carefully explained: A natural born citizen is anyone born on soil, subject to our jurisdiction, and those born abroad to citizen parents are not, under common law, natural born, but rather are naturalized citizens by statute.
I am looking forward to help people understand that the court explicitly rejected Vattel. I am sure most birthers are not familiar with the history of the case and its rulings.
The Supreme Court was faced with a lower court's decision, ruling that Wong Kim Ark was indeed a US citizen.
In order to determine if this was indeed the case, the court observed that our Constitution mentions citizenship in only a few places: the power of congress to provide for uniform rules of naturalization, the term citizens of the United States and the term natural born citizen.
Observing that there are thus two kinds of citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized, the court was faced with the statutes that denied citizenship to Wong Kim Ark through naturalization. Thus, in order to find that WKA was a citizen, they had to find that he was a natural born citizen.
The Court observed that the term Natural Born had been left undefined in the Constitution and ruled that therefore its meaning has to be found in the Common Law.
The Court then looked at the Common Law before during and after the revolution and found that the term "natural born" before the revolution was defined in English Common Law.
The court then ruled that
The same rule was in force...
The Court presents an incredible wealth of analysis which I am more than happy to dive into with those interested but for the moment I'd like to focus on the following
The appellants had argued that under our Common Law it was the rule of Jus Sanguinis that had prevailed and the court rejected this argument, observing that
and
Finally the court looked at the 14th Amendment and found it to be declarative of Common Law and ruled
You have no idea what you find when you actually look at the facts, even in a bean (sic) dumpster... Most people are probably not even familiar with the lower case in the California courts, or the briefs and arguments submitted to the Courts. It was an outright rejection of Vattel, in favor of our Common Law practices of jus soli, which considered anyone born on soil, with minor exceptions, to be "natural born" citizens and not requiring any statutory support.
First the PDF now Wong Kim Ark... Slowly the walls are coming tumbling down. Did I share that I love 'demolition'
Oh, the dissenting judges understood the impact of the ruling
Quote:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
Unreasonable? Perhaps, but the majority of the Court made this finding and we all understand what this means under our Constitution?
Many courts have referenced US v Wong Kim Ark and they continue to confirm its findings.
The latest courts, starting with Ankeny for example...
Last edited by native born citizen; 06-29-2013 at 01:32 PM..
You have no idea what you find when you actually look at the facts, even in a bean (sic) dumpster... Most people are probably not even familiar with the lower case in the California courts, or the briefs and arguments submitted to the Courts. It was an outright rejection of Vattel, in favor of our Common Law practices of jus soli, which considered anyone born on soil, with minor exceptions, to be "natural born" citizens and not requiring any statutory support.
That's funny. I did not know Bush's security agents were Arabs on board of the planes. Or are you referring to the poorly developed conspiracy...
Yes, I also love to demolish ignorance found in so many conspiracy theories... Starting with President Obama's eligibility.
It's a lot of fun, but I do find that the confirmation bias of some, makes it harder to get them to recognize the relevance of my findings. Instead, people try to ignore them and hide themselves from the facts. The 'conservative' brain dislikes uncertainty, did you not know?
That's funny. I did not know Bush's security agents were Arabs on board of the planes. Or are you referring to the poorly developed conspiracy...
Yes, I also love to demolish ignorance found in so many conspiracy theories... Starting with President Obama's eligibility.
It's a lot of fun, but I do find that the confirmation bias of some, makes it harder to get them to recognize the relevance of my findings. Instead, people try to ignore them and hide themselves from the facts. The 'conservative' brain dislikes uncertainty, did you not know?
Sure you're not slumming from your ordinary occupation as a screenwriter?
Sheriff Joe Arpaio And U.S. Congressman To Address Obama's Eligibility And Documentation Fraud Today At 5pm Est. Live
well, it seems as tho arpaio had nothing new to offer and the congressman was a no-show. what are your thoughts on that claud?
There is another possibility. I think "Est" was an abbreviation for "Eastern". But maybe, just maybe it's "Eastern Standard Time". If that's the case then the show happened at 4pm EDT which meant the congressman was on an hour earlier than we tuned in.
LOL.... Arpaio hasn't even bothered to read the alleged report from the handwriting expert.
Yeah... he's engaged.
That was gold.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
