24 Comments

1. 

   April 22, 2019 at 2:44 am

   StevenMarquis

   Reply

   I knew and assisten quite a few filers but I cant recal your case – well done BTW but the courts wer intimidated and unsupported by either party and that’s why they would not hear our cases. The Republicans did not want to touch it

2. Pingback: “Natural Born Citizen” Issue Comes Full Circle | The Post & Email

3. 

   February 10, 2015 at 6:39 pm

   btw77

   Reply

   Please read the publication “To Defenders of the Constitution!”

   http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/to-defenders-of-the-constitution

   where the Obama’s ineligibility according to the Constitution was considered and proved.

   The proof was based on the “Definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen’ according to the Constitution”

   (see the Attachment to the publication mentioned above; this Definition was sent as a letter to Federal District Judge – alas, no answer).

   Unfortunately there wasn’t (and isn’t) enough Defenders of the Constitution.

   Please feel free to use this material in your noble mission.

4. 

   January 21, 2015 at 12:06 am

   Robert C. Laity

   Reply

   Obama has usurped the Presidency, by fraud, during time of war. THAT alone makes Obama a spy and a traitor under U.S. Law. Obama stands accused of treason and of being a spy. It is apparent and overtly evident that BOTH Major parties are acting to inculcate foreign influence into our sovereign nation by knowingly proffering candidates for President that are likewise NOT “Natural-Born [American] Citizens”. The United States of America has been commandeered. The faux Obama “Administration” is a RICO cabal. There are members from both Major Parties in this cabal. Obama is also a Muslim supremacist whose agenda includes the introduction of Islam and Sharia Law into our Judeo-Christian society. Obama is a very dangerous,degenerate,deviant,evil miscreant and an enemy to America. Obama belongs in the Brig. If convicted of the Treason that he stands accused of, Obama should face execution in front of a Military Firing Squad or be hung by the neck until DEAD. See: 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115, Sec.2381 and 10USC, UCMJ 906.106.

   1. 

      January 21, 2015 at 3:34 pm

      LTC William F. Reade, Jr.

      Reply

      To all our Elected and appointed Officials the authority to grant AMNESTY is absent from our Constitution, and from the powers granted by the people to the President and Congress when assembled.
      It is most imperative that this demand begin with the indisputable Declaration that nowhere in the powers vested in the President or in the Congress Assembled, is the authority to GRANT AMNESTY. The United States Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) gives the President the power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, but clearly not the power to grant amnesty.
      Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the authoritative scope of Congress. Those Enumerated Powers of the Congress include: • Collect taxes • Borrow money • Regulate trade • Establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; • Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;• Coin money • Establish post offices • Provide a military • Provide a militia • Make all necessary and proper laws • Declare War. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to forgive anyone of anything.
      The attempts at immigration reform that are being proposed and advanced by Congress are, at minimum, Unconstitutional, and probably criminal. They are predicated on political pandering, whimsy, wishes, fear, and pressure from groups with something to gain, legally or not, and ignorance of all relevant laws.
      Our elected officials have asked the question: “Who can be considered Citizens?”, and they have fabricated an answer that is “TOTALLY” inconsistent with what the founding fathers stated in the first and Third Congress and has been continually expressed in all of the Legislation promulgated since, amendments have not eliminated the intent of the First Statute.
      It is safe to say that not one of our elected officials has asked: “WHO CANNOT be born a citizen? … they MUST ask this question, and look to history for the answer!!
      FIRST CONGRESS . Sess. II. Chap. 3. 1790 “ Chap. III.
      An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
      And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”.
      The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states:
      “…children of citizens of the United States…shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…” (THIRD CONGRESS Session II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790”.
      It is now therefore established, based on undeniable historical fact, from an unquestionable source, who can and who cannot be a citizen.
      I refer to the Definition of a US Citizen, not the birthplace. The place of a person’s birth has little or nothing to do with Citizenship, under international law and treaties the laws of each nation have total and unequivocal authority over the same, i.e. : [See; Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws (The Hague, 12 April 1930)]; (S. Res. 511) recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. ———–” [though he was not born in the U. S.]. [First Congress, “born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,”]

      The First Congress explicitly eliminated being born in the country, as a requirement for citizenship {Jus Soli}, they placed this requirement on the status of the father (parents); citizenship by descent {jus sanguinis}.
      “the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. (when their parent [s] become naturalized citizens)
      “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”
      The Proviso the founders included in both the First and Second Congress for Parentage conclusively and unequivocally provides for citizenship by descent. {jus sanguinis}. “..Whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:” [cannot be]
      The actions presently being assumed and demanded by the President, and now being considered by Congress, are absolutely and undeniably unconstitutional, and to lawfully pursue this action, they will need to legally eliminate, {by Constitutional Amendment} the Constitutional requirement of parentage by repeal and replacement of provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which clearly and succinctly STATES:
      ”1: 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.
      Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of—–“.
      Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
      One of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment’s first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant: “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
      If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth, then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant, ergo:
      JOHN S. Mc CAIN, III CITIZENSHIP — (Senate – April 30, 2008) [Page: S3645]
      “Mr. BROWN: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 715, S. Res. 511
      The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
      The legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution (S. Res. 511) recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. ——————”
      “Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, §1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.”
      Whereas the Senate has referred to and cited [out of] the Statute enacted by the First Congress, and based on the decision in Wong Kim Ark para. I. “In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.” I am including the whole Statute again so none can have any misconception as to its, contents, intent or interpretation.
      FIRST CONGRESS . Sess.II. Chap. 3. 1790
      “ Chap. III. — An act to establish an uniform Rule Of Naturalization.(a)
      And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”.
      Reflecting on the above information, we cannot do anything that will violate International Law, or the Sovereign right any Nation has over its citizens.
      1. Anyone who is in our country without evidence of legal citizenship and without the express permission from our State Department is here illegally, and is by definition a criminal and by our laws must be deported. Consequently, to not comply with our own Constitutional laws by one or all of our involved elected and appointed law enforcement officials, is the commission of a crime against these United States.
      2. We cannot confer citizenship on any individual without their applying or requesting it, and by their formal renouncing of all ties or obligations to the Nation of their Birth, before a Magistrate or Judge. No one in any official capacity can grant United States citizenship to any alien without proper application in accordance with our citizenship and naturalization of aliens’ laws. The President, the Congress, or any other official cannot grant citizenship to any persons, except in accordance with United States Constitutional law. The power of naturalization is Reserved for: Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that sets forth the authoritative capacity of Congress. The Congress shall have Power: To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, …….throughout the United States;
      [See; Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws (The Hague, 12 April 1930)]

      3. Amnesty: In criminal law, a sovereign act of oblivion or forgetfulness (from Greek amnestia, “forgetfulness”) granted by a government, especially to a group of persons who are guilty of (usually political) crimes in the past. It is often conditional upon the group’s return to obedience and duty within a prescribed period.
      The power to grant amnesty is not a lawful action of the President or the Congress. The Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) gives the President the power “to grant reprieves and pardons [not amnesty] for offences against the United States except in cases of impeachment.” Therefore, if the President grants amnesty it is defacto, an Unconstitutional and impeachable Act.
      Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the authoritative capacity of Congress. Enumerated Powers of the Congress include:
      • Collect taxes • Borrow money • Regulate trade • Establish Bankruptcy codes • Coin money • Establish post offices • Provide a military • Provide a militia • Make all necessary and proper laws • Declare War (forgive nothing)
      Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.1:
      • Grants the President power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, (amnesty is not included)

      The powers of the President are “carefully limited” and precisely defined by our Constitution. In Federalist Paper No. 71 (last para), Alexander Hamilton asks…what would be … feared from an elective magistrate of four years’ duration, with the confined authorities of a President of the United States?
      The answer to Hamilton’s question is this: There would be nothing to fear if Presidents obeyed the Constitution. But they don’t obey it because the idiots in Congress don’t make them obey it!
      Mr. Reade is a retired LTC and a graduate of:
      California Western University; B. S. B. A.
      U. of Massachusetts, Boston; M. Ed.
      The Industrial College of the Armed Forces for National Security.
      The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
      Presently serving as the Legislative Chair, Cape Cod Chapter M.O.A.A.

   2. 

      January 21, 2015 at 8:10 pm

      LTC William F. Reade, Jr.

      Reply

      http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/display_docket.php?dno=SJC-11776 This is a Link to the Massachusetts SJC Site and my case against the Sec of State and the Attorney General.

      What is going on in Washington today is so far out of line with our Constitution that if it was not so criminal it would be laughable. The Informational Data I have enclosed proves two FACTS:
      1. Nowhere in the powers vested in the President or in Congress Assembled, is the authority to GRANT AMNESTY.
      2. Mr Obama is not who or what he professes to be. He has committed crimes against humanity misusing power and authority that is not his, unlawfully. He has obtained the position he now occupies by deceit, and violation of all of the International Laws, and TREATIES the

      United States has previously agreed to, and is preparing an “amnesty bill” which will violate The Hague Convention and numerous Nation’s Citizenship Laws (see Article III § 2, US Constitution below)
      These are the International Laws which affect Mr Obama’s and my Citizenship, which I presented and the Defendants Have to be aware of due to their Positions. Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat

      Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws
      (The Hague, 12 April 1930)
      CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS
      CHAPTER I
      GENERAL PRINCIPLES
      Article 1
      It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.
      Article 2
      Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State.
      CHAPTER III
      NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN
      CHAPTER IV (NA)
      NATIONALITY OF CHILDREN
      Article 12 (NA)
      Article 13
      Naturalisation of the parents shall confer on such of their children as, according to its law, are minors the nationality of the State by which the naturalisation is granted. In such case the law of that State may specify the conditions governing the acquisition of its nationality by the minor children as a result of the naturalisation of the parents. In cases where minor children do not acquire the nationality of their parents as the result of the naturalisation of the latter, they shall retain their existing nationality.
      (Article 14; 15; 16; 17. Omitted)
      GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS
      Article 18
      The High Contracting Parties agree to apply the principles and rules contained in the preceding Articles in their relations with each other, as from the date of the entry into force of the present Convention.

      British Nationality Act 1948 Legislation.gov.uk
      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/56/contents

      PART II
      CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES
      Citizenship by birth or descent
      4 Citizenship by birth (not applicable).

      5Citizenship by descent
      (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth: (Mr Barack H. Obama, II.)
      Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—
      (a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects ;

      There cannot be any argument to the conclusion that Mr. Obama was definitely a British Citizen at Birth because we cannot arbitrarily obviate or disregard another Nations Laws, just for the sake of one individual’s aggrandizement or promotion, without Consequences [see the Hague Convention 1930]. Nor can we not question his Citizenship in this Country based on his Mother’s status to convey legal citizenship at the time of his birth.

      His Mother was born in the United States and his Father was a British subject/citizen. His Mother however, was not of age to meet the residency requirements to convey Citizenship:
      ….. “providing the U.S. Citizen parent had, prior to the birth of the child, been physically present in the United States for a period of ten years, at least five years of which were after the American parent reached the age of fourteen.” She was 18 years of age and in the country only 4 (four) Years after her 14th birthday.
      Transmission Requirements for Citizenship:
      “Child born in wedlock to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. Citizen parent between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986: ……………., may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. Citizen parent had, prior to the birth of the child, been physically present in the United States for a period of ten years, at least five years of which were after the American parent reached the age of fourteen.”
      ______________________________

      http://kenyaembassy.com/pdfs/Noticekenyacitizenship.pdf
      As of 30 August 2010 Barack Hussein Obama, II became a Citizen of Kenya under their Revised Constitution, retroactive to 12 December 1963. The previous Constitutions being repealed the new Constitution effects all who were born under British and Kenyan Constitutions after 1948.
      He was allowed to run, be elected and installed as President of the United States, as a citizen of a foreign nation:

      (R e v. 2 0 1 0] Constitution of Kenya 17)
      1. A person born of a Kenyan parent irrespective of the place of birth automatically becomes a citizen of Kenya by birth.
      2. The constitution confers automatic recognition to persons holding citizenship of other countries as citizens of Kenya by birth so long as they are able to prove parentage as aforestated (National identification cards, passports). { His Birth Certificate}

      “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Justice Sotomayor puts it in slightly more formal terms, but that is the basis for the majority holding that Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for “ignorance of the law does not excuse” or “ignorance of the law excuses no one”)
      ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬_____________________________________
      http://kenyaembassy.com/pdfs/Noticekenyacitizenship.pdf

      NOTICE:
      KENYA CITIZENSHIP – ARTICLE 14(1), (2) AND (5) OF THE CONSTITUTION
      The Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act 2011 which implements Chapter 3 of the Constitution commenced on 30th August 2011 and effectively repealed the Kenya Citizenship Act Cap 170, The Immigration Act Cap. 172 and the Aliens Restriction Act Cap 173, Law of Kenya.
      Below is a clarification of Constitutional Provisions relating to Citizenship.

      1. A person born of a Kenyan parent irrespective of the place of birth automatically becomes a citizen of Kenya by birth.
      2. The constitution confers automatic recognition to persons holding citizenship of other countries as citizens of Kenya by birth so long as they are able to prove parentage as aforestated (National identification cards, passports)(His Birth Certificate).
      3. Kenya citizens by birth who wish to hold citizenship of other countries which do not allow dual citizenship may voluntary renounce and would be entitled upon application to regain their
      Kenyan citizenship.
      4. Kenya citizens by birth who ceased to be citizens of Kenya by voluntarily acquiring the citizenship of other countries and renouncing the citizenship of Kenya in accordance with the repealed Constitution may regain citizenship UPON APPLICATION in the prescribed manner below.
      5. The persons who enjoyed dual citizenship but who by virtue of the repealed Constitution renounced or lost their Kenyan citizenship upon attainment of the age of Twenty Three (23)years should automatically be deemed citizenship by birth. (Mr Obama)
      ________________________________________________
      Article III – The Judicial Branch
      Section 1 – Judicial powers
      The judicial Power (NA)
      Section 2 – Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
      (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
      In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
      Amendment 11 – Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
      The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
      Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
      Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
      Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
      This is the operative section of the U. S. Constitution pertaining to the supremacy clause – Article VI Section II
      “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;
      [1] and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,
      [2] shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
      [3] anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

5. 

   January 19, 2015 at 12:26 pm

   Cort Wrotnowski

   Reply

   when I filed with the state of Connecticut, I was arguing that the Sec. of State for CT had a responsiblity to protect voters from election fraud. I was arguing on the basis of principle. The counter argument was the need for explicit statutes directing the Sec. of State to check fraud. It went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it was kicked back on the basis that it was a conflict not to be decided by SCOTUS. Implicitly, they were agreeing that explicit statutes were needed.

6. 

   September 13, 2014 at 8:01 am

   Charles S. Imwold

   Reply

   “We The People ‘ have a fraud and usurper sitting in the White House going by the name of barack hussein obama using a stolen social security number , forged birth certificate and forged selective service registration card to prove he is a legal sitting US President .

   “We The People ” demand that the US Congress honor their oath to the US Constitution and remove this fraud and usurper barack hussein obama from office under Article ll Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution .

   This fraud and usurper barack hussein obama can not be impeached because he is not a legal sitting US President . The removal of this fraud and usurper barack hussein obama from office must come under US Constitutional law Article ll Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution .

   US Constitutional law must be enforced if “We The People” are to remain a free and Constitutional Republic .

   1. 

      September 15, 2014 at 11:08 am

      Tracy Fair

      Reply

      AMEN!

7. 

   July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am

   Senovia Mendiola

   Reply

   http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/231383

   1. 

      July 19, 2014 at 12:37 am

      Senovia Mendiola

      Reply

      http://mobile.wnd.com/2009/07/103626/

8. 

   July 19, 2014 at 12:28 am

   Senovia Mendiola

   Reply

   I want to let you know there was a US soldier that questioned Obama’s eligibility in court & the soldier won. He was able to stop his deployment.

   1. 

      September 2, 2014 at 6:41 am

      Sophist

      Reply

      I notice you didn’t actually provide a source for you claim. But I’m sure it totally happened. Your boss’s cousin’s roommate’s parole officer’s dentist’s neighbor read about it on a blog.

      1. 

         September 9, 2014 at 6:09 pm

         James Carter

         Reply

         I notice you didn’t actually provide a source to refute Senovia Mendiola’s message. But in typical Obot fashion that sure didn’t stop you from attacking the messenger.

      2. 

         September 15, 2014 at 11:11 am

         Tracy Fair

         Reply

         Go back to your fogbow cesspool you slimy Obot!

9. 

   July 3, 2014 at 7:26 pm

   BERTHA-MARIE REYBURN

   Reply

   THANK YUU SO MUCH FOR ALL YOU DO,,HAVE A NICE 4TH ..I WILL NEVER CELIBRATE THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION..
   GOT BLESS YOU ALL.. I AM NEARLY 80 AND PUTTING A ROOF ON MY HOME BUT PLAN DRIVING TO VIRGINIA AN CAMPING AND TAKING A BUS EVERY DAY TO D.C…
   IS 91 DEGREES IN WASH STATE AND GOT TO 95 YESTERDAY..
   AM CUTTING THE TOP ONT OF MY HEDGEES TOP OF A 10 FOOT LADER..
   GOT TO LOVE YOU ALL AND WILL SEND THIS FAR AND WIDE APROX 100 E-MAILS..
   HANG IN THERE I VOVW YOU AND SENDING PRAYERS..BWETHA-MARIE

10. Pingback: FAIR v. OBAMA: Reply to Respondent’s Answer Filed in Maryland Obama Eligibility Case

11. Pingback: BREAKING: Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the Maryland Court of Appeals in the eligibility case of Fair v. Obama

12. 

    May 15, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    Sophist

    Reply

    Hey, Tracy, how’s it going? We really miss you on the Amazon “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” forum. It’s gotten a lot less funny there without you.

    1. 

       May 15, 2014 at 10:42 pm

       Tracy Fair

       Reply

       Yeah, they tell me that pretty much everywhere. Kinda strange though since most of the places that love my back and forth posting are the same ones that BAN ME! They just can’t handle the facts.

13. 

    May 8, 2014 at 6:46 am

    Stephen Tonchen

    Reply

    My compliments to you for your effort to challenge Obama’s presidential eligibility.

    I cannot say, one way or the other, whether you should appeal Judge Stansfield decision in Fair v. Obama. I do not have much confidence in the state judiciary’s willingness or ability to properly deal with the Obama eligibility question.

    However, if you decide to appeal, please consider my research regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen”, particularly my article entitled “Benefiting from Obama’s Ineligibility”, which is found here:

    http://people.mags.net/tonchen/BenefitingFromObamasIneligibility.htm

    There is a distinction between the “two parent theory” (which defines natural born citizenship as birth in the US, to parents who are both US citizens), and the “exclusive citizenship theory” (which posits that a natural born citizen is one who, at birth, is a citizen of the US exclusively and is not a citizen or subject of any foreign country, regardless of the state or condition of the parents). Although your argument in Fair v. Obama favors the “two parent theory”, may I humbly suggest that the historical and legal evidence supporting the “exclusive citizenship theory” is stronger and is more likely to prevail on appeal.

    Again, thank you for your effort to uphold and defend the Constitution. My appreciation and best wishes are with you, regardless of what you decide to do next.

    – Stephen

    1. 

       May 8, 2014 at 3:10 pm

       Tracy Fair

       Reply

       Hi Stephen, the case was actually appealed back in September 2012 and a hearing was held in Sept 2013 and the case was dismissed. Yesterday I filed a motion to reconsider the 2nd dismissal, so I am now awaiting a decision as to whether they will reconsider hearing my appeal. If that fails, then I am on to the MD Supreme Court.

       Although your info might be correct, Obama was still born a British Subject pursuant to the British Nationality Act of 1948, because his father was a British Subject. The child follows the father. Research it here: https://www.google.com/#q=%22children+follow+the+condition+of+the+father%22&safe=off

    2. 

       May 8, 2014 at 3:17 pm

       Tracy Fair

       Reply

       Also, not sure if you’ve seen my natural born citizen research but it can all be found here: http://www.unslaveamerica.com/usurper-obama/

    3. 

       September 9, 2014 at 6:19 pm

       James Carter

       Reply

       If you are correct that the historical and legal evidence supporting the “exclusive citizenship theory” is stronger and is more likely to prevail on appeal then all the better because according to Barack Hussein Obama II himself he was not a citizen of the U.S. exclusively at birth because his father’s Kenyan citizenship passed on to him under the British Nationality Act in effect at the time.