meh...whacked around with him quite some time ago. He really needs to stick to running his gallery.

After reading your thread it looks like you have it all covered, Pat. I don't want to pound my head against that wall any more. He's a birther and will never admit he's wrong, even though his fantasies have been proven wrong for over a year now.

Failed law student/paralegal Leonard Daneman is back spouting his ridiculous citizenship nonsense and championing Apuzzo and claiming Corsi has a cause of action against Obama for ruining his book sales...

http://www.amazon.com/review/R26OHKNG5F ... hisHelpful

What a moron.

ahhh... he's blogging again.

http://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/

Yep I've been all over him. Not only that but he's claiming only laws from the 1700-1800s apply and Obama can't be a citizen because of it. He also said that Obama had to be in the US 5 consecutive years as a child to keep his citizenship. I pointed out that's incorrect and that Obama was in the US consistently except for 4 years from 6-10. I then pointed to several cases including Mandoli v Acheson, Vance V Terrazas. He then claims the judges were wrong in those cases even though the cases are standing law and never overruled

Looks like he's almost in sovereign citizen land making up his own law of citizenship. What does the 1922 Cable Act have to do with anything?

About as much as his bringing an inheritance case chirac v chirac into this

Seems that he thinks"naturalization" is the sole means to become a citizen or something. Doesn't appear to understand that native born citizens need no naturalization. Maybe he should read this:

“There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703. Miller v. Allbright, 523 US 420 (1998).

or

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1875)

Then again, I seem to remember that it is a waste of time trying to tell him anything.

Daneman has returned after I laid out his asskicking weeks ago. This time arguing Rogers V Bellei as presedent for Obama to lose his citizenship. He gets wrong the statute, the statute being repealed by congress in 1978 and the age for which you have to be in the US. Not to mention it wouldn't apply to Obama as he was born here.





I can't stop laughing.

Leonard needs to stick to his so-so photography.

Him believing that Mario Apuzzo's briefs and filings are some of the finest legal analysis of natural born citizenship currently in the law says a lot about Leonard's legal acumen. Of course, he's a frustrated attorney, have been "prevented" (his word) from completing his final year of law school. Many potential New Mexican clients should be very thankful.

I always read his "handle" as parallelogram, one of those math things I never could learn. Also square root. Aren't y'all glad I do math for a living? Thank dog for calculators.

Just for reference, the subject in question. VERY distinguished pipe smoker.

Wait. What?

Is he saying that every kid who spends the summer touring Europe loses their US citizenship? How about Mormons (Rmoney in France) on their missions?

So distinguished that he kinda looks like Eric from Tim and Eric Awesome Show

Oh god, I hate that show. There is just nothing funny about it to me.

Sorry Raicha ... /jack.

that's the first thing I thought of...since I have several Mormon friends (BYU Hawaii a big competitor to UH)...they'd be "citizenship" less? that makes no fracking sense. so these Mormons, born on US Soil, who do their missions abroad for years, become citizenshipless?

pray tell, what law does this fall under?


What about normal people? My ex-boyfriend's father has lived in Japan going on 40 years (married a Japanese citizen wife, and chose to stay in Japan). He's never renounced his citizenship.

He's referring to an old nationality act that was repealed by congress in 1978. The rule was if you became a citizen through naturalization (Obama was born a citizen so it wouldn't apply to him) then between the ages of 14 and 28 you had to have been in the US for at least 5 years or you would lose your citizenship. See Rogers V Bellei

and another dumb response from Lenny

King George was in Philadelphia?

Women could run for president then?

King George was black?

Three fifths of them could.

More stupidity



This makes absolutely no sense. Derivative naturalization according to the statute he's talking about would be one who becomes an American citizen by naturalization through one of his parents. Since he was born in the US there was no derivative naturalization. But now he's claiming because his mother married lolo he was derivatively naturalized as an Indonesian and somehow 1952 INA 301(b) somehow applies. He doesn't even understand what he's saying. Oh and the majority of the court were "stupid judges" and we should look to the dissent for the real ruling.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R26OHKNG5F ... hisHelpful

Things I learn from birthers. Apparently dissents are binding Supreme Court precedents. Jeeze, I keep getting this law stuff all wrong, maybe I should enroll at Taft.

Swift double slap delivered to Lenny on what a "dissent" is and how said dissent provably demonstrates that the SC were explicitly aware that their ruling makes WKA (and Obama) eligible to run for Prez.

God the guy is a complet and utter fuckwit