Main Menu

Archive | March, 2009

Natural Born Citizen: Defined!

Prowling through Google Books, I found an interesting volume: JUDICIAL AND STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND PHRASES COLLECTED EDITED AND COMPILED BY MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL STAFF OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM (1904).  West’s National Reporter System is private publishing concern that compiles and organizes for easy reference, state and local legal decisions. Begun in 1879, it continues to this day (a part of Westlaw). What follows is citations from legal decisions, not comments from the editors.


Independently of the constitutional provision it has always been the doctrine of this country except as applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves and their descendants that birth within the limits and  Jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates citizenship. In the case of Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the limits and allegiance of the United States whatever the situation of his parents was a natural born citizen and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession In re Look Tin Sing (U. S.) 21 Fed. 905, 909.

The term natural born citizen of the United States means all persons born in the allegiance of the United States. United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789. The natural born subjects of a monarch comprise all persons born in the allegiance of the King United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789. Continue Reading →


Framer speaks on natural born citizenship

Charles Pinckney

Sen. Pinckney

Charles Pinckney of South Carolina was one of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He was, however, no ordinary delegate because not only was he the one who suggested to the Continental Congress in 1786 that the Articles of Confederation be revised, he carried with him to the Constitutional Convention a set of draft provisions for the the new constitution. He developed this draft through an extensive study of colonial laws and reference materials. Nearly one half (29 components  out of 60) of the adopted United States Constitution follows Pinckney’s provisions.1

Charles Pinckney also has the distinction to be the last of the framers of the Constitution to remain in Congress.

Speaking to the Sixth Congress, on the method by which the Congress certifies election of the President, Senator Pinckney said:

They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible. . . .

CCLXXXVIII.: Charles Pinckney in the United States Senate. 1 – Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 3 [1911]

“Experience and attachment” was the “original intent” of the framers, according to  one of them who “remembers it well.” It was not “super citizenship” or “purity of blood” or “perfect undivided loyalty” but simple “experience and attachment”.

As best my research shows, this is the only comment by a framer of the Constitution on natural born citizenship that has survived. [John Jay was not a delegate to the Convention. The closest Jay gives to a definition is “not a foreigner.”]

1 Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina by Richart Barry, Ayer Company, Publishers, Inc.,  Salem NH, 1942. p. 314.


How to form a grand jury… O’rly?

Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz

I found the following cookbook for “How to Form a Grand Jury” over at Orly Taitz’s foundation, One can readily see that they are making up the rules as they go along:

1. How to form a Grand Jury:

a. Regulations, authority, citations, legal requirements;
b. Who can call one? (any U.S. citizen? Registered voter? Criminal record excluded? Relationships with those being charged?, etc.)
c. Number of members required, and backups (25, ?); Simple majority for a Presentment/Indictment ?
d. How and to whom to announce the formation of the Grand Jury; method of public notification?
e. Terms to be used: Presentments? Charges? Accusations? Indictments? Continue Reading →


Nonprofit v. Charity

Orly Mascot

Tax Deductible

A new feature has appeared on the Orly Taitz blog,, a “NonProfit Federal Tax ID#” down at the bottom of the page.

I suppose this is in response to calls for more transparency at sites like hers and Phil Berg’s. However, donors should be aware that while the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation may be a non-profit, it is not a charity, not a 501(c)(3). Donations to the DOFF are not tax deductible.

The way to verify a charity, an organization eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions, is through the IRS Search for Charities page. The quick search is to put the word “Defend” in the search box, and the name type “Starts with”.

Orly never says contributions to her are tax deductible, but someone might mistakenly confuse a non-profit with a charity. Since Defend Our Freedoms Foundation is in essence a political organization, it can never be 501(c)(3).


Site Statistics

I want to share some site statistics with you. We’re rapidly approaching 500,000 page accesses since the inception of Obama Conspiracy Theories last December. Here are latest statistics showing the phenomenal growth of this blog. These Statistics include search engines.

week beg. #reqs #pages
Dec/ 7/08 3573 2090 ++
Dec/14/08 24030 6968 +++++
Dec/21/08 26390 10790 ++++++++
Dec/28/08 55572 20518 ++++++++++++++
Jan/ 4/09 56227 20343 ++++++++++++++
Jan/11/09 78212 24351 +++++++++++++++++
Jan/18/09 140708 39679 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jan/25/09 111250 35640 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feb/ 1/09 97399 38388 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feb/ 8/09 95381 37934 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feb/15/09 104427 37262 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feb/22/09 114790 36441 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mar/ 1/09 133656 43494 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mar/ 8/09 143405 44884 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mar/15/09 175502 47389 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hollister dismissed, Hemenway reprimanded

Unable to sanction the real culprit in the harassing lawsuit, Hollister v. Obama, Judge Robertson reprimanded attorney Hemenway under whose signature the suit was filed.

The decision left little question who the Judge would have preferred to punish, if that person had had the courage to show up in court. See footnote 4. is now part of the judicial record.

H/t to mimi for the info.