It may not go far considering I am a registered Republican and. therefore, not an elector of Barack Obama in the primary. But I’ll send it again later on after the DNC convention; I guess.

This guy has been stinkin' up TPM for 6 months or more, believes there is a SupR SeKrittm Natural Born Citzenship. Signs all his Krap with "ex animo". I expect he will; what's that legal term.... GTFOOMCR.

It's actually a rather interesting attack, IMO. It certainly outshines anything Orly has produced in a long, long while.

The statutory basis is here

But ya gotta love yer nutjobs, don't ya? Why does someone pretending to be a serious, on-the-level, sane objector sign it "ex animo"? I mean, why not just sign it "sum fatuus"?

At least he actually has standing. I've been saying for quite some time that birfers would have a lot more chance at getting to losing because their facts are bogus instead of just having it thrown out on standing grounds if they would pick a statute that actually gave them standing in state court.

This nut will at least get to be told "get out of here, you're nuts and your evidence is trash." That's as close to victory as you get in birfistan.

The campaign will present the same birth certificate and maybe the long form, which is certified by the proper keeper of the records, the ALJ will note this fact and the birfer will lose. Then he can contest that in some kind of trial court if he wants to waste more of his time and appeal that until he loses. If he's somewhat competent in the procedure, he might even get another Ankeny-like decision, telling him that he's crazy.

davidfarrar

Hi Dan,
Please don't forget, there are two important candidacies that must appear on the ballot of Nov 4, 2008: Dr. Paul's and your own. That's right, if you are a duly registered Democrat or Republican, you are qualified to enter your name on your local ballot as a candidate to be an "executive committee" member of your party.

For further details, please go to my website listed below or to your local Board of Elections.
ex animo
davidfarrar
nolp.blogspot.com
Dec 08, 2007 9:55 AM

david farrar (Diary) Friday, March 20th at 9:34AM EST (link)

I live in Georgia now. But a few years ago, as a court reporter, I was hired to cover the town meetings of a small (two-square mile), largely Cuban/Hispanic town of West Miami, Florida. It was in this capacity I first became aware of Mr. Rubio’s political potential when he ran and quickly won a seat on the city commission. Every since then his meteoric rise in Florida politics has not been a surprise to anyone who knows him.

Although I think running for the U.S. Senate at this stage might be a mistake, better Lt. Governor, the Governorship, and then US Congress, I have learned never, ever to underestimate Mr. Rubio’s political potential.

I, too, certainly hope he wins his U.S. Senate seat. God knows the Senate needs his talent and political contributions right about now.

ex animo
davidfarrar

David signed the petition | over 2 years ago
I demand congress and the President enact single payer universal health care.

The campaign will present the same birth certificate and maybe the long form, which is certified by the proper keeper of the records, the ALJ will note this fact and the birfer will lose. Then he can contest that in some kind of trial court if he wants to waste more of his time and appeal that until he loses. If he's somewhat competent in the procedure, he might even get another Ankeny-like decision, telling him that he's crazy.

Now let me see, "ex animo", ex = away from, animo = animal? Does this mean he has given up shagging sheep?
Regards ..........Dick

I think it would be marvellous to get a definition of "natural-born citizen" on the record...

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Please be advised, the Administrative Court of Georgia has just taken up my case challenging Barack H. Obama presidential qualification, and I will be submitting my pre-hearing pleadings by Dec 1, 2011.
ex animo
davidfarrar
http://unlawfulpresident.com/2011/11/22/reque...

The fun just keeps coming on.

Any way to find out if there is a court date?

If there is, O'rly get to appeal this one to none other then the Honorable Clay D. Land.

davidfarrar said...[Reply]

"'I would be just as insistent if it was for Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney,' Harry Accornero said."

As for Mitt Romney, there is a "natural born" citizen concern as well.

I have spent the last two days pouring over the life and times of Miles Park Romney: Mitt Romney's great-grandfather (paternal), Helamen Pratt: Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather (maternal), Gaskell Romney: Mitt Romney's grandfather (paternal), George W. Romney: Mitt Romney's father, and Mitt, himself, as their family history relates to the constitutional requirment of a "natural" born Citizen presidential qualification. My conclusion is that Mitt Romney's claim to be a natural born Citizen is just as illegal as Barack Obama's claim.

George Romney (1907–1995), Mitt Romney's father, who ran for the presidency under the Republican Party banner in 1968, was born in Mexico, but not to U.S. parents, as he claimed.

Mitt Romney's great-grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after the U.S. federal government outlawed polygamy. As the Romneys tell the story: George Romney(Mitt's father) and his monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship when they returned from Mexico in 1912. It is further by the Romneys they never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus sanguinis statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers.

However, I have found overwhelming prima facie evidence, including a copy of Mexican Naturalization papers for Helamen Pratt (Mitt Romney's maternal great-grandfather), that suggests George's mother was a Mexican citizen at the time of his birth in Mexico.

"When a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."...Sen. Jacob Howard

The Romneys may have come back into the jurisdiction, and they may have believed they were still US citizens, but were they? Mitt Romney needs to confront this issue head-on if he considers himself an Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 natural born Citizen.

Since the doubts concerning Obama's and Mitt Romney's "natural born citizen" status are Constitutional in nature, the honorable thing to do, if either one of these two men are, indeed, honorable in this regard, is to ask the Supreme Court (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of legal opinion) for a declaratory judgment in resolving these doubts before the next election in 2012.

ex animo
davidfarrar

"Zeb" says:
Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 8:37 PM

I am getting the same runaround in GA.
My strategy is to file an FOIA for Obama’s DNC certification, certified mail in the morning, give that three plus three days to be acted on and then use whatever comes out of that, if anything, as substantiation to file a complaint for investigation.

Our statutes specify the SOS is responsible for qualifying the candidate. The statute defers to the party for president; however, if the party doesn’t state qualifications, which the DNC has not been doing, then it falls back to the SOS. The complaint will be blast emailed to the local grassroots folks and the grassroots leaders and GOP chairs in North Georgia. Neither the SOS or A.G. will act unless they feel political pressure, I am sure.

I have a one-page cover letter on five pages of data. The data simply shows the Minor opinion and the statement from S. Res 511 that qualified McCain, i.e., he was born of American citizens. I then show the FactCheck date which clearly states that Obama’s reputed father was a British citizen and this was backed up by concurrence of Obama’s Fight the Smears website.

Precedence to back up the Constitution and data to show Obama does not meet the requirements. No S.S. questions, no B.C. B.S, just straight requirements and were they met, yes or no.

"Zeb" says:
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Obama has been placed on the ballot in Georgia for our primary vote in March.

The codes for the SOS for presidential candidates specify ” . . . nomination as prescribed by rules of a political party; . . .” I have asked the SOS elections division for the procedure to obtain the nomination papers used by the DNC to certify Obama to be on the ballot. They are “checking” on my request and have not given me the answer. The administrative offices at the capital in Atlanta are heavily populated with liberals so this is going to be a rough go.

If I either get the paper or a notice that it does not exist then that will let me go back to the SOS to raise the question of qualifications. I have put them and the A.G. on notice in a letter posted here earlier this week that their process is faulted.

It will be interesting to see how they attempt to slide. The usual ploy is to ignore the
problem (question) in hopes that it will go away. We are involved in tough times; this is where persistence will pay off.

"The fear our Politicians feel, coming from the Media, can be a concern but, in no way, absolves the Ga. SOS’s office from doing its duty. There is no easy way around this so my request is a simple one… Man up, remove Mr. Woods from his involvement with this oversight committee and adhere to your Oath of Office by doing what every other Politician is afraid to do. Demand documentation, proving once and for all, that this man is either eligible or not. Based on what has been offered as such documentation, by the White House, he is not.

The eyes of the Nation are now upon you. Your timely response will be appreciated.
I have cc’d Sam Olens on this in the fervent hope he will initiated an investigation into Voter Fraud in the 2008 and upcoming 2012 elections. As the saying goes, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”.

Sincerely,

Carl A. Swensson"

Jurisdiction falls squarely on the shoulders of your office as head of the Georgia Board of Elections and it is your sworn duty as a man of honor and Public Servant to protect and defend the Constitution. The very U.S. Constitution that is now under attack and assault by the DNC for having failed in their responsibility to submit an eligible candidate for inclusion on our ballot.

I have voiced this concern to you many times over the past year, citing Minor V Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875) but it would now appear as if those words of caution are going unheeded. Supporting SCOTUS cases have been scrubbed but are now re-surfacing thanks to the work of Leo Donofrio. Esq. and I would ask you and your research staff do your homework and look closely at Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894) (aka In Re Lockwood at Justia), is essentially the holy grail of support for Minor v. Happersett, as it states:

“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since…” (Emphasis added) and also the City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980)

I must bring these supporting cases for Minor V Happersett since your office has installed, as the chief arbiter, Former Central District U.S. Atty. Max Woods who has personally told me (see sworn affidavit attached) that even an “Anchor Baby” is eligible to hold the highest office in the land. I see this as an affront to the sensibilities of all Georgians and a fraud upon her citizens that only your office can now rectify.
[

You see, there's a troubling trend of ignorance on the part ofelected officials in regards to the Constitutional requirement for the highest office in the land. This trend is and has been aided by both our schools and the major Media for purposes that completely escape me. The Supreme Court has given us the correct definition in the ruling of Minor V Happersett (1876) which is this [he then references the "birther money quote" from Minor ]