Bill O'Reilly...TIME TO GET UP TO SPEED...

Ind. 2008 Presidential Candidate files Amicus Curiae Brief in Barnett vs. Obama -
Posted on October 28th, 2009

The Post & Email published

CODY ROBERT JUDY SUPPLIES DOSSIER ON BEHALF OF 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ALAN KEYES
by John Charlton

Cody Robert(Sept. 12, 2009) — Mr. Cody Robert Judy filed a Brief of Amicus Curie, yesterday, in the action Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Obama et al., being heard by Judge David O. Carter, in the U.S. Federal District Court, Southern Division of California, Santa Ana Federal Building.

Mr. Judy ran as independent conservative 2008 Presidential Candidate in the last general election, and ran on a platform emphasizing national defense, national preference and enforced border control.

In his 22 page Brief of Amicus Curiae, Mr. Judy marshalls extensive documentation which addresses key issues in the Barnett vs. Obama case; namely,

1) Expert and legal analogy of ‘natural born” by Mario Apuzzo, Esq, submitted to Senator Hatch/Bennett R’s-UT,

which argues that:

The “natural born Citizen” clause serves a critical purpose today and must be enforced in every Presidential election. The President has immense power, both civil and military. The clause assures the American people that their President does not have any conflicting allegiances or loyalties. In our nuclear world, it will avoid having a President who may hesitate to act quickly and decisively in a moment of crisis due to some internal psychological conflict of allegiance or loyalty. It will avoid any foreign nation expecting and pressuring the President to act in their best interest instead of that of America. The clause gives the American people the best chance that they will not be attacked from within through the Office of President. Knowing the President is a “natural born Citizen,” the American people will trust their President with their lives. Finally, such a President can expect that the military will give him or her full trust and obedience.

. . .

That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in, The Law of Nations (1758), Vol.1, Section 212, “Des Citoyens et Naturels“, a “citizen” is a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, Vattel wrote that a native or indigenes (written in French as les naturels or indigenes) or “natural born Citizen” as the term later became translated from French into English, is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society.

This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.)

With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a “citizen.” The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is.

Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation).

2) Smith v. Allwright 321 U.S. 649 (1944) Affirming Candidates as individuals

Smith v. Allwright 321 U.S. 649 (1944) undertaken by the United States Supreme Court was, is an action by a national political party “governmental action” for purposes of enforcing Article II and Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution? The Court in Smith v. Allwright, examined whether the action of the political party was a state action or private action. It was determined that since primaries were conducted by the party under statutory authority, the party was an agency of the state insofar as it determined the participants in the primary election. The party took it’s character as a state agency from the duties imposed on it by the state statutes, and the duties did not become matters of private law, simply because they were performed by a political party. Lending credit to the fact that Department of Justice is miserable in its conduct towards Barrack Obama in:

1. Representing private individuals
2. Investigation of the case of material action of fraud, by sworn false statement of material fact perpetrated upon Petitioners, and all U.S. Citizens causing a misleading degree of thought in the Presidential elections of 2008.

3) Mr. Gabriel J. Chin’s article in Michigan Law Review First Impressions, Vol. 107, No. 1, 2008 (Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-14)

which argues U.S. Senator John McCain was not eligible as a natural born citizen to be a presidential candidate; to wit,

Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but it was not incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain’s campaign, distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore Olson examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two reasons that Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under current law.

The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to “all persons born . . . in the United States.”

However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held that “unincorporated territories” were not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens.

The Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained citizenship by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not cover the Canal Zone.

Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a citizenship law applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain citizenship, but eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President” under the Constitution.

4) Barrack Obama’s dual citizenship disqualifies him as Presidential Candidate

Here, Mr. Judy argues thus,

Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens. This provides the reasons why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”. The inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution crafted enumerates upon this:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President;

The Framers needing to make themselves eligible for President didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had divided loyalty to another Country. While the Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, they wrote the grandfather clause (which no one living today qualifies under) in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the new nation declared the United States of America.

The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens”. Clearly noted in 14th Amendment terminology of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution thus creating a separation of trust for POTUS.

Obama states he was born, in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. His mother was an American woman, Stanley Ann Dunham, and his father was Barack Hussein Obama Sr. – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies born in Kenya, which was still a British colony. Obama Sr. was in the United States on a college scholarship and was neither a citizen nor a permanent resident of the United States. Because of the citizenship status of his father, Obama Jr. was governed by British citizenship laws at the time of his birth. The law that governed Obama Sr. and his children was the British Nationality Act of 1948. It stated the following:

“1.—(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.

“(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression ‘British subject’ and the expression ‘Commonwealth citizen’ shall have the same meaning.”

Barack Obama Sr. as a British citizen and subject to the laws of the British Nationality Act (BNA). The following sections establish that Obama Jr. was subject to the same laws at birth:

“4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth.”

“5.—(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.”

He was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies on August 4, 1961. If he was in fact born in the United States, then it is possible that he acquired both United States and British citizenship. If he was born in Kenya, as long as their father was previously a British citizen born in Kenya:

“1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

“2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”

Barack Obama Jr. was a British citizen at birth and a Kenyan citizen by virtue of the adoption of the Kenya Constitution. At age 23, he lost his Kenyan citizenship if he did not renounce his British or United States citizenship, take the oath of allegiance to Kenya, and declare his intentions of residence in the country. However, at no point did he automatically lose his British citizenship.

In the British Nationality Act of 1981, all previous citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies became “British Dependent Territories” citizens. This term was later amended to “British overseas territories” citizen.

“s 23 Citizens of U.K. and Colonies who are to become British overseas territories citizens at commencement.

“(1) A person shall at commencement become a British overseas territories citizen if–
(a) immediately before commencement he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had that citizenship by his birth, naturalization or registration in a British overseas territory; or
(b) he was immediately before commencement a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and was born to a parent—
(i) who at the time of the birth (‘the material time’) was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and
(ii) who either had that citizenship at the material time by his birth, naturalization or registration in a British overseas territory or was himself born to a parent who at the time of that birth so had that citizenship.”

In 1981, Obama became a British overseas territories citizen by virtue of the latest BNA, which was amended by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002.

“2 British overseas territories citizenship

“(1) Pursuant to section 1, British Dependent Territories citizenship is renamed ‘British overseas territories citizenship’; and a person having that citizenship is a ‘British overseas territories citizen.’”

5) Reaffirming Identification of Interest of Applicant

In which Mr. Cody Robert Judy explains that as a 2008 Presidential Candidate, he was similarly harmed by the impostures of Senators McCain and Obama.
6) Conclusions

Mr. Judy writes, in summary:

If the United States is to continue to be a Constitutional Republic the principles and powers of the Constitution must be defended with the zeal of Patriotism associated with the Standard the United States foundation rest upon. The keystone of our Republic is the Constitution which has guided our destination. As success is determined in history’s general frame, our Nation is an extremely successful experiment the world has witnessed and been astonished by. The unique characters written for our success by the Framers of the Constitution were read, unlike many of the bills coming out of Congress by representatives elected by the people today. These principles were well thought out by men considered by many to be wise and full of understanding, even divinely inspired.

The principles enumerated upon include a strict guideline to a “natural born citizen” being a qualification for the President that is clearly discernable from every other kind of citizenship found in the Constitution which was separated in the interest of “loyalty” and “independence” of any foreign claim or appearance of divided interest. To that rest in peace the body of our military soul, our economic sovereignty, and in the future light our own blessed generations in liberty and freedom do and will depend upon. It is the Applicants assertion that when these principles are abandoned our Nation suffers the misdirection of our military, the economic prosperity we are accustom to, and the civil accord afforded in our liberty and freedom as rights not to be abridged by the Government.

In the latest address to Congress Obama mentioned “The time for bickering is over; The time for games has past; Now is the season for action”, to wit Applicant believes he is the biggest game player and we need to continue action in defense of our Constitution and call him out for what he has done behind the back of the American People in a fraudulent affirmation of his “natural born status” that as a past constitutional lawyer and teacher is inexcusable and treacherous. In the 6 months of Barrack Obama’s occupation of the White House Obama has proposed more spending then all Presidents combined lending a credible theory of dismantling the United States in disastrous theorems of socialistic and one might say British or Canadian rule . . .

In conclusion, this first Amicus Curiae brief provides valuable information in a clear and precise manner, for citizens interested in understanding the importance of the case, Barett vs. Obama, for all citizens.