Sunday, January 17, 2016

BREAKING NEWS: FLORIDA Man Challenging Cruz and Rubio Eligibility Speaks Out…

CRUZ      5e6faec892c0829e75f7fc0d04e5d72d094ccdca
Meet Michael Voeltz, the mystery man behind the Declarative Judgment court case involving Rubio (and Cruz) in Florida.  While America is waiting to hear the courts decision, Michael explains in his own words why he took this action.
What’s amazing to me is that I am the only one in Florida legally raising this issue, as Florida has probably the best election contest statutes in the country. I did not use the statute (Fl. SS. 102.168(1)(3)(b)) this time (I did against Barack Obama in 2012, and filed all the way to the US Supreme Court– I’ll come back to that) because it only gives a cause of action after an election against a winning candidate, and I do not think Cruz or Rubio can win on 3/15/16 in Florida. None of the multitude of Florida attorneys, or university constitutional scholars wanted to be painted with the “birther” brush I guess, no matter how obvious (Cruz– born in Canada) or less obvious (Rubio– born of non US citizen parents in Miami) the ineligibility is. The question and atmosphere around this valid Constitutional question has been so poisoned and so much disinformation has been spread that they probably do not want to have their reputation dragged through the mud by the corrupt Obama loving media. So I guess that leaves me, as I am just a car salesman. No risk to the reputation there (my wife says I am the only honest car salesman for what it’s worth)!
The media is the biggest obstacle to the question of what is a natural born Citizen being honestly litigated because they constantly muddy the water with calculated arguments meant to confuse and misinform.They also rely on third party disinformation to verify the lies that they spread. The Congressional Research Service propaganda written by Jack Maskell was used by Congress and the media to hide behind regarding Obama, and now the Harvard Law Review article on Natural born Citizen, written by the usurper’s solicitor general, Neal Katyal, is what the media now hides behind. Both are nothing but propaganda, half truths and utter nonsense that prove how far down the rabbit hole that we as a nation have gone. Jack Maskell has been part of the political establishment as a legislative attorney since 1973, and Neal Katyal is a former solicitor general and supposed “constitutional scholar” at Georgetown. They must be telling the truth, right? Who am I, some car salesman, to challenge them? It is hard for people to understand because they have normalcy bias, and cognitive dissonance; they don’t want to upset the perceived notion that academia is honest and that the government is not an evil entity. They don’t want to hear that the Republic does not exist when the executor of the laws is an illegal entity, and that there is no law except what the criminals in government say the law is, even though that is what is happening right before their eyes.
When I first saw Obama running for POTUS in 2008 I knew something was wrong. His “change” rhetoric was unsettling. It seemed that no one noticed his evil persona but me, and he seemed to hypnotize people with this back and forth turning of the head, phrasing, and tone of voice when he spoke, which caused people to actually fawn over him, and cry and almost convulse. I was alarmed, so I sought out more information, and came upon Leo Donofrio’s site from which much was learned.
I was amazed that very few saw the significance of the flubbed oath of office given to Obama on that fateful January day in 2009, when the Republic was overthrown (and how Roberts asked for an affirmation of religion in the redone oath, voiding it- he asked Obama to repeat “so help me god”, which is not part of the oath, many of the Presidents made similar affirmations on their own, but were never asked to make such affirmation). To me that whole surreal episode confirmed that the installation of Obama went to the top of the political establishment— they all knew he was not a legal POTUS. The fact that John McCain was not eligible either (born in Panama) was the icing on the cake. Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton) sponsored Resolution 511 declaring that McCain was an eligible natural born Citizen (he wasn’t), giving himself no opposition for a challenge to his eligibility from another candidate– as it was mutual. Obama even told the world that he was not eligible by the title of his book, “Dreams From My Father”, a story not of American roots, but of Kenyan, Communist roots. I knew he had no allegiance to this country. In the 2008 election Americans were given the choice of 2 ineligible candidates, proving that both sides are the same, which the candidacy of Cruz and Rubio proves today.
I filed a contest of election according to Fl. SS. 102.168 against Obama and the Fla. sec. of State, which allows a voter, eligible to vote in an election (must be a democrat in the closed Florida primary– so I became a democrat), to challenge the eligibility of “any person nominated or elected to office”, in February 2012, in Leon County Circuit Court. At the hearing Judge Terry Lewis agreed with Obama’s lawyers that “no nomination had occurred”, even though the very definition of “primary election” is for the “nomination of a candidate” to the national convention, i.e the nomination of Barack Obama by the Florida democratic party delegates to the National Convention. When I pointed out that Fl. SS. 101.251(1) stipulated that a lone candidate in a primary (Obama was the only Democratic party candidate on the ballot) would be declared “nominated to the office” and his name would not be printed on the ballot, the judge said that “the statute does not apply to Presidential elections.” I watched the judge lie to my face, (but in private since there was very little news coverage), and I felt like Josef K. in Kafka’s “The Trial”. Judge Lewis even denied that I had asked for declaratory judgment, and at another court hearing challenging that aspect, I encountered a cigar chomping redneck judge who, in a hearing in his chambers, jumped out of his seat and threatened me with contempt of court and calling the bailiff to throw me out when I tried to speak. I had driven 7 hours up there from Broward County for the 10AM hearing, and now at 12PM I drove all the way back, totally dejected, and wondering what my country had come to. I was scared for the future of my kids. Then, on appeal, the District Court of Appeal filed a “per curiam affirmed” of the lower kangaroo court. I didn’t realize it then, but that is how a plaintiff is shut down in Florida— they file no opinion in the appeals court, that way there is nothing to argue against, and by the Florida judicial rules that is the last stand– no appeal to the Supreme Court of Fla. is available. I filed there anyway, but the case was not heard.
In mid November 2012, after Obama’s win in the General election in Florida was certified by the Florida Elections Canvassing Commission, I filed another contest of election in Tallahassee. This time, in true Kafka-esque style I was not even afforded a hearing, as required by the contest of election statutes. Judge Cooper issued an opinion that compared Obama to Santa Clause– stating that “if the political establishment thought Obama was President, then he is,” as documented here–
I appealed and the appeals court sat on it for months, before issuing “per curiam affirmed”. I filed in the US Supreme Court, but they did not hear the case. (Roberts knew he was not eligible anyway remember?)
This time I filed for Declaratory Judgment, which is also a strong remedial statute in the state of Florida, one week after the Sec. of state published the names on the Republican Primary ballot (I am now a republican). I have no illusions that the judiciary is not totally politically corrupt, but I did it anyway, because I want it on the record who may lie and sell out the Republic. The complaint is based on a violation of my right to vote. The political parties and the Secretary of state of Fla. have diluted and debased my right to vote by placing ineligible candidates on the ballot, which is akin to stuffing the ballot box with 300,000 votes for illegal candidates. “No person but a natural born Citizen shall be eligible”, is a self executing constitutional provision, which needs no statute to enforce, and eligible means “capable of election”. If they are on the ballot, then they are “capable of election.” Many voter’s rights cases have a number of people affected the same way (such as Baker v. Carr).
It is much easier for people to grasp that Ted Cruz is not eligible, as he was born in Canada, and most people erroneously believe that simple birth in America makes one an eligible natural born Citizen. Thus the media has come out with spin, citing Katyal’s Harvard Law Review nonsense, that anyone born to ONE US citizen parent anywhere in the world is eligible, citing the Naturalization Act of 1790, that the children of US citizen parents born abroad SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS natural born Citizens. First, how they make the logical leap from “PARENTS” to “ONE PARENT” is beyond me. Second, the statute is not saying that those children ARE natural born Citizens, it says that they shall be CONSIDERED AS natural born Citizens, meaning that they are NOT natural born Citizens but will be CONSIDERED AS natural born Citizens for Constitutional purposes, i.e eligibility for the Presidency. Most likely it was a benefit to early American diplomats. Sealing the lie, Katyal opines that John Jay had children born abroad, and “it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility”. Which of course means nothing, how would he know that? Besides, Jay’s 2 children born abroad were daughters (1782 Maria (Nancy) in Spain, 1783 Anna in Paris) who were both born before 1790, and there was no thought that a female could be POTUS at that time anyway. At any rate, the NA 1790 stipulation would have allowed his children born abroad, if he had any between 1790 and 1795, which he didn’t, to be eligible, so what is Katyal talking about? John Jay’s last child was Sarah Louisa, born in NY in 1792, so he had no children that applied to the NA 1790. He also tells this whopper, “The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point”. There were no such things as US Citizen mothers being of separate citizenship from the father, unless the child was born out of wedlock, as the woman assumed the citizenship of the husband upon marriage, and surely naturalization acts in 1790 would not have paid so much attention to the naturalization of bastards.
Katyal, of course makes no mention of Supreme court cases that defined natural born citizen as “born in the US to US citizen parents”, such as The Venus, 12 US 253 (1812), Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1875), and Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 680 (1898), and prefers to focus on a Congressional naturalization statute no longer in force since 1795, that did not define natural born Citizen, but gave a benefit to early American diplomats, that their children born overseas could be POTUS, if born between 1790 and 1795. After all a trip to Europe by ship in 1790 was harrowing and took a lot of time to complete. Then he focuses on two former candidates for POTUS who were not elected, as if their candidacy is some sort of precedent, citing Mitt Romney’s father George in the 1968 election and Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election. Romney certainly was not eligible, as he was born in Mexico of US Citizen polygamists who moved there to avoid penalties from the Edmunds- Tucker Act against polygamy. He was born a US Citizen, but certainly not a natural born Citizen. Goldwater though was eligible, NOT as a natural born Citizen, but because he was a citizen of Arizona when it adopted the Constitution (he was born in 1909 in Arizona and Arizona became a state in 1912 so he was eligible by A2S1C5, “or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this constitution.”)
Katyal’s contention that “citizen at birth needs no naturalization” mirrors 7 FAM 1131.6-3 “Not Citizens by Naturalization”
“Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term “naturalization” means “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization. ”
However the definition of “naturalization” contained therein says that it is the “conferring of citizenship after birth by any means whatsoever,” which is exactly what the statutes contained in 8 US 1401 do– they “confer citizenship” after birth. The State dept. lamely tries to imply that since naturalization must occur “after birth” that those that acquire citizenship “at birth” “need no naturalization.” Those that acquire US nationality at birth do not acquire it in the womb or in the birth canal, they acquire it after they are born (definition of “birth”; “the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent”– Miriam-Webster). Thus they are naturalized passively by statute (any means whatsoever) when they emerge from the mother’s body, i.e AFTER they are born. “At birth” means “AFTER BIRTH”. Even the statutes themselves say that, “a. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of “jus sanguinis” under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 1111 a(2)).” (7 FAM 1131.1-1). “Acquisition” implies giving nationality, and natural born citizens are citizens by “tacit consent”– they aren’t “given” citizenship, and “governed by federal statutes” means governed by Congressional naturalization law.
The desperate mincing and parsing of words gives away the lie that Katyal is telling. Without even defining natural born Citizen one can prove by logic that Cruz and Rubio are not eligible.
1) Natural born Citizens have always been citizens of the US at the time they were born.
2) If born before 1934 in the same circumstance (born in Canada to a US Citizen mother and foreign father) Ted Cruz would not have been considered even a US Citizen when he was born.
3) Thus Cruz is only considered a US Citizen today by Congressional naturalization law.
4) Cruz is naturalized, not natural born and not eligible.
1) Natural born Citizens have always been US Citizens at the time they were born.
2) If born in 1802 under the same circumstance (born in the US of legal resident alien parents) Marco Rubio would not have been considered a US Citizen until his parents naturalized, regardless of whether a state gave him “birthright citizenship” (See NA 1802 S. 4)
3) Thus Rubio is only considered a US citizen “at birth” today by Congressional naturalization law.
4) Rubio is naturalized, not natural born and not eligible.
The other logical argument is even simpler. If the very purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement is prevention of foreign influence, then how is it possible that one born in a foreign country or of foreign parentage is eligible? No media has ever asked that question, and never will, but I will.
By Michael Voeltz

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.