The bill is in for Orly Taitz, the California lawyer leading the “Birther” litigation: $20,000 for sanctionable conduct. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land previously issued a stern warning to attorney Orly Taitz and others in the so-called “birther” campaign: do not file another such “frivolous” lawsuit or you will face sanctions. Land threw out the lawsuit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes who is an Army surgeon challenging her deployment orders due to President Barack Obama’s alleged ineligibility to serve as President. Land (a Bush appointee) noted that “[u]nlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” In the most recent order, Land said that Taitz’s conduct “borders on delusional.”
Rhodes previously accused Taitz of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for “reprehensible” representation.
When Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation, she proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
Respectfully,
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggested that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He noted:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
The court ruled that Taitz violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing frivolous papers. Declaring the filings as made in “bad faith,” the court concluded that Taitz’s legal conduct was “willful and not merely negligent.” Sanctions were warranted, he held, because “Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”
“When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law,” Land writes. “When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the judicial code of conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice. . .
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
I expect that Taitz will appeal the decision, given her past statements. The opinion goes into considerable detail on her conduct and interaction with the court, as shown below.
For the decision, click here.
For the story, click here
Wootsy be male or female does not matter to me. Allow me to say Thanks for the Memories
Wootsy that was a great video and gave me one of those Flashback moments of time and place in which I shall never forget. It was when I was at this club called Ba Ha Beach Club, in Jacksonville Beach.
I got into the ring with the head bouncer for the club.
Keith, 6′-4″ and 250, Bdaman weigh in at 5’8″ and 175.
I got in quick with several good jabs on the inside and then POW!!!
I unloaded with a right hook and the crowd just went crazy. Place was packed with all eye’s on da ring.
His eye’s wobbled and then I rocked him again, same shot, POW!!!!
and then his alarm bell started ringing and he knew he was in trouble.
He cocked his right arm back and let it fly, BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!.
He rocked the shit out of me and I immediately felt the blood start to run down out of my nose and knew that was it.
I put up the hands in defeat and retreated to the bathroom to look at my nose. Luckily it didn’t get flattened anymore than it already was.
When I came out I saw Keith over by the DJ both and they were just taking his gloves off and he starts rubbin the side of his head. The number two man of the club, Bubba came up and said,
” Bdaman, I swear if you would have hit him just one more time with that right hook of yours, he was going down”
Thanks for the Video it is one of fondest memories of a different time and a different place.
“So what is the problem of comprehension? Obama was born in the US. Like country A, Kenya accorded him conditional temporary “citizenship” based on birth to his father. It was not based on Kenyan jurisdiction over him at his birth, because Kenya had no such jurisdiction or legal power. It never exercised jurisdiction.”
Is this pure sophism or is Mr. Treacy completely unaware of the status of Kenya at the time of Obama’s birth?
Would Mr. Treacy care to reword his previous statement to conform to Kenya’s status in 1961? i.e. Obama was born in the US. Like country A, Great Britain accorded him conditional temporary “citizenship” based on birth to his father. It was not based on British jurisdiction over him at his birth, because Great Britain had no such jurisdiction or legal power. It never exercised jurisdiction.
Would Mr. Treacy accept the paragraph immediately above to be representative of his legal opinion?
W-o-o-s-t-y,
Thanks for that most apropos video I had not previously seen. I might just have to reconsider my opinion of you after that. By the way, are you a boy or a girl—if female, which I suspect—then my opinion is most certainly going to be favorable—if male, not so much. 😉 I wait with bated breath for your polite, reasoned reply…
Slartibartfast said “As I read the 20th and 14th amendments there are no Constitutional distinctions (at least no distinctions as far as citizenship is concerned) between men and women.”
Could you please explain how you arrived at that conclusion?
QUOTE
Bdaman 1, May 1, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Law students please take note, the Wong Kim Ark case was decided by the District Court of California who relied on the Circuit Court’s decision in Look Tin Sing. In that case the court specifically pointed out that Look Tin Sing (like Wong Kim Ark) was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. UNQUOTE
United States Circuit Court of California, September 29, 1881, In The Matter Of Look Tin Sing, On Habeas Corpus.
According to the headnote, the court held that “a person born within the United States of Chinese parents residing therein, and not engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, is a citizen of the United States.” The headnote continued “Persons are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; but only those who are thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must at the time be both actual and exclusive.’
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA368&dq=%22aliens+born+in+the+united+states%22&id=xUsZAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22aliens%20born%20in%20the%20united%20states%22&f=false
Near the end of the decision, the court stated:
“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. In illustration of this general understanding he mentions the fact, that when at an election an inquiry is made whether the person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, If he answers that he is a native of this country the answer is received as conclusive that he is a citizen; that no one inquires further; no one asks whether his parents “were citizens or foreigners; it is enough that be was born here whatever was the status of his parents. He shows also that legislative expositions on the subject speak but one language, and he cites to that effect not only the laws of the United States, but the statutes of a great number of the States and establishes conclusively that there is on this subject a concurrence of legislative declaration with judicial opinion, and that both accord with the general understanding of the profession and of the public.”
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA368&dq=%22aliens%20born%20in%20the%20united%20states%22&id=xUsZAAAAYAAJ&output=text
So the case clearly anticipated the holding of Wong Kim Ark. A child born in the United States to alien parents who are not diplomats is a citizen by birth. The court stated “every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural born citizen.” A “natural born citizen.”
The “exclusive jurisdiction” of the United States applies to all parents who are “not engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity.”
Jurisdiction. Citizenship.
QUOTES ON
Dig that logic and reasoning 1, May 1, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Can you dig it?
The foreign-born child of a British subject is not a British Subject because Great Britain did not have any jurisdiction over the child.
That is Mr. Treacy’s honest opinion. 🙂
But the foreign-born child of a U.S. Citizen is somehow a natural born citizen of the U.S.???
Just how stupid does Vince Treacy think the readers of this blog are?
unquote
Without getting into the personal invective and accusations of stupidity, my civil response, addressed expressly to the “readers of this blog,” is that this poster is another one that has confused the concepts of citizenship and jurisdiction. The poster has also confused the terms “subject” and “citizen.”
Jurisdiction is the legal power and control that a country or state maintains over all persons within its bounds, citizens and foreigners alike. Merriam: “1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law; 2 a: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b: the power or right to exercise authority: control; 3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised.
Citizenship is the membership of an individual in the political community of a nation. Free online dictionary: “A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.”
Britain used to call its citizens “subjects” of the Queen. The American colonists were all British subjects. After the Declaration, they became American citizens, since they were no longer subject to any monarch. (The British Commonwealth is moving away from “subject” to “citizen.”)
Each country makes its own rules for citizenship. It can accord citizenship to persons not under its jurisdiction. It can exercise jurisdiction over persons in its bounds who are not citizens. Country A may say that all children of its citizens, wherever born, are citizens (jus sanguinis). A child born in B to citizens of A is therefore a citizen of A — but was under the jurisdiction and legal power of B at birth.
So, nowhere did I write that “The foreign-born child of a British subject is not a British Subject because Great Britain did not have any jurisdiction over the child.” Where did I say that? It is hard enough defending what I do say.
If Britain has a law that provided that children of its subjects are British subjects wherever born, then those foreign-born children are British subjects (citizens) EVEN THOUGH BRITAIN HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THEM WHEN BORN.
The prevailing, but not unanimous, legal opinion, is that children born outside the US to citizen parents, who become citizens at birth under the US laws that are codified in Title 8 of the US Code, are natural born citizens eligible for the Presidency. The US may not have jurisdiction over them at birth, but accords them citizenship at birth by law. One reason that McCain was considered a natural born citizen was because of his birth overseas to American citizen parents (although there is minority legal opinion otherwise).
So what is the problem of comprehension? Obama was born in the US. Like country A, Kenya accorded him conditional temporary “citizenship” based on birth to his father. It was not based on Kenyan jurisdiction over him at his birth, because Kenya had no such jurisdiction or legal power. It never exercised jurisdiction.
Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired at age 21. McCain was born outside the US to citizen parents. The US accorded citizenship to him at birth and he ran for President
The US made the rule for Obama’s United States citizenship in the 14th Amendment, quoted above. Since the United States had jurisdiction over Obama at the time of his his birth in the US, he was a citizen by birth and a natural born citizen who ran for and was elected to the Presidency.
I go out to play poker with some buddies for a bit and when I come back there are 30 new posts and a scolding from Professor Turley – you guys need to find something better to do on a Saturday afternoon!
Bdaman posted:
The statements from the Hawaii DOH verify the information on the web posting – logically speaking there are only two options:
(1) The COLB posted on the web is an accurate reproduction of the information on file with the Hawaii DOH.
(2) The officials of the Hawaii DOH have committed perjury.
Since proposing (2) requires something… um… you know… like… oh yeah! EVIDENCE in order to be considered and absolutely no credible evidence for option (2) has been presented, we may assume (1). This leads us to:
(1a) The information on the COLB is correct and President Obama was born in Hawaii and is eligible for the office he holds
or
(1b) The information on the COLB was somehow fraudulently reported to the Hawaii DOH.
Since what I said about (2) goes for (1b) as well, we’ve got (1a) as our working assumption (by which I mean that this is assumed true until proven otherwise). If you’d care to provide evidence that is admissible in a court of law for (1b) or (2), we’re all ears, if not then you’ve got nothing and no one will take you seriously except the tinfoil hat crowd.
Vince,
I think you missed the boat on the ‘permanently domiciled’ argument. (Of course, Bdaman seems unaware that there is a boat…) While your arguments were correct and well referenced as usual (and show that Bobby Jindal is eligible to be president – not that it will ever matter ;-)) they just don’t apply to Barack Obama. None of the arguments you or Bdaman have made apply to the child of a US citizen born on US soil. The birthers seem to have a huge blind spot and one of the things in that blind spot is the 20th amendment. As I read the 20th and 14th amendments there are no Constitutional distinctions (at least no distinctions as far as citizenship is concerned) between men and women. There is an implicit assumption in the type of birther argument that Bdaman is making here that fathers have ‘inheritable’ citizenship while mothers do not. I don’t think that this is supported by law (as always, please correct me if I am wrong).
Bdaman said: “If this is in deed [sic] a [sic] fact the great niece of Dr. West, it is highly unlikely. Medical ethics would suggest this to be untrue. [That Dr. West delivered his grand-niece.]”
As per your usual you give no evidence for your assertion. Per Wikipedia:
This quote would suggest that Bdaman’s assertion about medical ethics is untrue.
Bdaman posted:
As a scientist I like to judge things on their merits and on one had we have the reasoned, logical arguments of Vince for which he always provides sources and on the infrequent occasions where he is incorrect about something he is quick to admit it and stops using the claim against the often faulty insinuations of Bdaman which frequently involve abstruse arguments, convoluted interpretations of the law and biased interpretations of statements. Bdaman’s statements here are just more pointless and irrelevant insinuations. We don’t trust Vince more because of his credentials, but because of the quality of information that Vince has provided in his previous posts on this blog versus the quality of Bdaman’s previous posts. That being said, I would be interested to hear any more information that Vince would care to divulge about the incident with Senator Hollings and the testimony in the congressional record.
Vince posted:
Bdaman posted:
This may help (from dictionary.com):
Dig that logic and reasoning posted:
We’re smart enough to know that the only relevant laws in determining President Obama’s citizenship status are the laws of the United States of America. In case you missed it, we fought a war in order to show that we were not beholden to the laws of Great Britain or any other nation…
Woosty est etiam a cattus,
Very funny. Bdaman’s flips were very impressive – right up until the point where Vince began to fight…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESHXNoEIlio
😉
It’s interesting that the only tactic left to the birthers is smearing Vince and flooding the channel with volume over substance.
And by interesting, I mean sad and pathetic.
Just how stupid does Vince Treacy think the readers of this blog are?
Stupid enough to think they will believe that threw no fault of their own, the IRS will put them in jail for failing to pay their taxes and then cites cases where a defendant defrauded the U.S. Government as proof.
Can you dig it?
The foreign-born child of a British subject is not a British Subject because Great Britain did not have any jurisdiction over the child.
That is Mr. Treacy’s honest opinion. 🙂
But the foreign-born child of a U.S. Citizen is somehow a natural born citizen of the U.S.???
Just how stupid does Vince Treacy think the readers of this blog are?
Slart, FFLEO, getting late, gotta go.
Century old wrong treatises on one side. Blah, blah, blah. They were wrong then and wrong now.
Express language of the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court cases on the other.
Take your pick.
Slarti and FFLEO, more ignorance. This was all discussed with pants under George Washington and his library book.
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/04/18/george-washington-war-hero-father-of-our-country-book-scofflaw/
Obama was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the US when he was born. Kenya accorded him conditional citizenship based on his father’s citizenship. The conditions were never met, and it expired when Obama reached age 21.
Kenya never had any jurisdiction or power over Obama. It would only have had such power if Obama had moved to Kenya, which he did not. This troll posted on the other thread and read the entire exchange where this argument was exploded.
To repeat, potential conditional “citizenship” in another country has no effect on the exclusive “jurisdiction” of the US in this country.
Law students: please note that, like Pantsonfire, this troll cannot even read its sources. Where is it stated that Kenya had jurisdiction? Nowhere.
A person who is born in the United States is not under Kenyan jurisdiction or power at the time of birth.
This legal discussion is deteriorating into remedial reading.
“A dissenting opinion is not the law.”
A TREATISE ON THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES by Henry Brannon (1901)
Henry Brannon was justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals from 1888 to 1913.
“Native Children of Aliens.—Children born in the United States of alien parents, not temporarily resident here, but permanently domiciled, are American citizens, whether the parents be Chinese or other nationality. This was law before the amendment, and is so under it. It was common law. Women may be naturalized, Priest v. Cummings, 16 Wend. 617; Brown v. Schilling, 9 Md. 82.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=1-A9AAAAIAAJ&dq=%22fourteenth%20amendment%22%20%2Bpermanently%20domiciled%20here%22&as_brr=1&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false
Slarti, there is no authority in the cases for “permanently domiciled” as a requirement, just some statement in an ancient treatise. Children of aliens who are permanently domiciled are natural born citizen, but so are all the children of all the other non-diplomatic aliens. “Native born” means born in the 50 United States, D.C. and territories. The broader term natural born citizen includes children born overseas to US citizen parents. A native born citizen is a natural born citizen. Natural born citizens include all native born citizens.
There is a total breakdown in logic and communication going on here.
History of the Bench and Bar of California, 1901
Edited by Oscar Shuck
“Citizenship of Chinamen”
By Marshall B. Woodworth, San Francisco Cal.
“The Wong Kim Ark case, decided by the United States Supreme Court on March 28, 1898, decides, for the first time in that tribunal, the question whether a person born in the United States of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision holds, substantially, that the language used in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is declaratory of the common-law doctrine, and not of the international law doctrine, and that, therefore, a person born in the United States is a citizen thereof, irrespective of the nationality or political status of his parents. While the question has arisen before and has been referred to in some of the decisions of the Supreme Court, still it cannot be said to have been directly involved and squarely decided until the present decision in the Wong Kim Ark case. This case settles, once for all, the question of the citizenship of children born within the United States, whose parents are foreign subjects or citizens.”
[A search of each term will find the google book, the URL is too big to search]>
http://books.google.com/books?id=t-lYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1099&lpg=PA1099&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+Wong+Kim+Ark+case,+decided+by+the+United+States+Supreme+Court+on+March+28,+1898,+decides,+for+the+first+time+in+that+tribunal,+the+question+whether+a+person+born+in+the+United+States+of+foreign+parents+is+a+citizen+of+the+United+States+under+the+citizenship+clause+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment.+The+decision+holds,+substantially,+that+the+language+used+in+the+Fourteenth+Amendment+to+the+Constitution+is+declaratory+of+the+common-law+doctrine,+and+not+of+the+international+law+doctrine,+and+that,+therefore,+a+person+born+in+the+United+States+is+a+citizen+thereof,+irrespective+of+the+nationality+or+political+status+of+his+parents.&source=bl&ots=SGJHJzHgOb&sig=qj-gmtWiufgCrM1WPX4tVeeugc0&hl=en&ei=CqDcS9j0IpX29AT3vO2cBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThe%20Wong%20Kim%20Ark%20case%2C%20decided%20by%20the%20United%20States%20Supreme%20Court%20on%20March%2028%2C%201898%2C%20decides%2C%20for%20the%20first%20time%20in%20that%20tribunal%2C%20the%20question%20whether%20a%20person%20born%20in%20the%20United%20States%20of%20foreign%20parents%20is%20a%20citizen%20of%20the%20United%20States%20under%20the%20citizenship%20clause%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.%20The%20decision%20holds%2C%20substantially%2C%20that%20the%20language%20used%20in%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment%20to%20the%20Constitution%20is%20declaratory%20of%20the%20common-law%20doctrine%2C%20and%20not%20of%20the%20international%20law%20doctrine%2C%20and%20that%2C%20therefore%2C%20a%20person%20born%20in%20the%20United%20States%20is%20a%20citizen%20thereof%2C%20irrespective%20of%20the%20nationality%20or%20political%20status%20of%20his%20parents.&f=false
Law students please take note, the Wong Kim Ark case was decided by the District Court of California who relied on the Circuit Court’s decision in Look Tin Sing. In that case the court specifically pointed out that Look Tin Sing (like Wong Kim Ark) was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
Was Barack Obama II under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States? He could not have been. By his own admission he was a British Subject at birth.
From Factcheck.org “As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
Enterprise come in Enterprise, this is Captain Kirk, come in Enterprise.
A COMMENTARY ON THE JURISPRUDENCE, CONSTITUTION, AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
SECOND EDITION
BY
JAMES Dewitt ANDREWS (1908)
“The qualifying phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” excludes the children of aliens not permanently domiciled, and all persons subject to any other jurisdiction, such as children of foreign ambassadors, or Indian nations within our territory; but unless the condition of the parents is such that it draws the status of the child with it, all persons born within the United States are citizens thereof.
” See Footnote 26
http://books.google.com/books?id=za4nAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22fourteenth%20amendment%22%20%2B%22permanently%20domiciled%22&lr&as_brr=1&pg=PA570#v=onepage&q=Until%20the%20adoption%20of%20the%20Fourteenth&f=false
Footnote 26: Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 The case of United States v Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 shows the importance of that middle condition which the writer has ascribed to denizens It was there held that a child born of Chinese parents who were bona fide and permanently domiciled here was a citizen.
I use my full name on numerous other websites that involve my area of expertise to establish full credibility and experience.
If you use your full name on NUMEROUS WEBSITES
Then why are you afraid of using your full name here. Is this the only website in which you don’t use your full name.
Mr. Treacy has the right to post anonymously if he so chooses. He chooses to let everyone know his credentials. That’s his choice.