Looks like the same malware is back on the Orly Taitz Esq . com web site.
“Of the 269 pages we [Google] tested on the site over the past 90 days, 33 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-09-30, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-09-30.”
So once again, we won’t be posting links to the Taitz blog until it has been fever free for 24 hours.
Dr. Conspiracy
I was a little stung by a criticism I read on another blog that “Dr. Conspiracy does no research.” That raised my hackles when I thought about the hundreds of hours in research I have done.
But the fact of the matter is that I rather burned out on research. If you find 50 things that prove your case, what is the marginal value of adding another one? There are 50 articles on this, and 50 on that — about 475 in total already on this blog. So as of late, I’ve been more into publishing “current events” and fluffier pieces. I also question the marginal value of more debunking when the birthers have been caught in so many lies that one more could hardly tarnish their reputation. The courts do not seem to be inclined to believe any of it, and issues of standing render the “natural born citizen” argument moot. With that discussion anyone with sense already knows, and those without sense aren’t going to changed their minds.
Anyway, now you know why I have turned on the valve and published a pile of research, citing some lesser known cases, and things that one will not see on page one of a Google search. What I intend to do for a while is publish one article on one historical source of interest. I’m not attempting to weave it into one epic saga of US legal history; someone else can do that. I’m going to make the source material more accessible.
It is an established principle that the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution lies on the prosecution. A defendant may remain silent and be acquitted if the case against him is insufficient.
There is something a reversal of burden, however, in a quo warranto case, one in which the government, after meeting a threshold of likelihood, challenges the right of someone to hold office; the burden of proof lies with the office holder. Courts have ruled, however, that only the government may bring a quo warranto suit, and those made by private individuals have been summarily rejected by the courts.
That said, should some part of the government bring a quo warranto action against President Obama, would he be obliged to prove his eligibility? Perhaps not. I refer here to a case of the State of Vermont v. S. Hollister Jackson from the Supreme Court of Vermont in 1907, where the eligibility of the states attorney of Washington County was challenged because, it was claimed, he was not a citizen at the time of his election to office.
This is a petition for a writ of quo warranto to test the right of the respondent to hold the office of state’s attorney of Washington county. As the case is presented, the only question for our determination is: Was Mr. Jackson a citizen of the United States at the time of his election to the office in 1904? It is said that we were not in harmony with the authorities when we held, in State ex rel. Danforth v. Hunton, 28 Vt. 594. that in these proceedings persons in possession of an office are presumed to be regularly elected and entitled to hold until the contrary appears; and that the true rule is that in such cases the burden is on the respondent to show legal title to the office [see source for citations]…
However this may be, we regard it of no importance in this case as the citizenship of the respondent is presumed. This presumption arises from the mere fact of his residence here [see source for citations]… It was this rule which Judge Redfield had in mind when he said in Blood v Crandall 28 Vt at page 400 that the general presumption is in favor of citizenship.
The details of the case (which was dismissed) are not of particular interest to the Obama question since Mr. Jackson was not born in the United States.
The a US Circuit Court in the case of US v. Rhodes defined natural born citizenship as birth within the allegiance of the United States [cited approvingly by the Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark]. Some have said that because President Obama, through his father, was born also a Citizen of the UK and Colonies, that he has a dual allegiance to Britain, and that this defect renders him not a natural born citizen of the United States.
It has always seemed to me profoundly unfair that some second country could impose an allegiance upon someone against their will, or that somehow a second country could dictate who could and who could not be President of the United States. Apparently, the court agreed with me in this decision from the case of Calais v. Marshfield (1844):
“Although the government of one country may grant to persons owing allegiance to that of another, the rights and privileges of citizenship, it is not intended to intimate that the government making such grant would thereby, and without their consent or change of domicil, become entitled to their allegiance in respect to any of their political duties or relations.” Calais v Marshfield 30 Maine Rep 520. [As cited in Fields International Code.]
The influential lawyer and legal reformer David Dudley Field gave an address to the Social Science Association in 1866. The title of his talk was “An International Code.”
In that address, Field made the following interesting comments about writers on international law, and I think it applies directly to the writings of Emerich de Vattel:
Who made these rules, or this international law if you so call it, is explained by the definition which I have given. It was made by the nations themselves, either through express compact with each other or through general practice; that is to say: by treaty or by usage. Publicists, I know, looking beyond the rules so made or sanctioned, have sought in those moral precepts by which nations, not less than individuals, ought to be governed in their intercourse with each other for guides in other circumstances; and statesmen and diplomatists have often fortified their arguments by reference to such opinions, and it has thus frequently happened that those precepts have been gradually adopted into the usage of nations. These views of the publicists are, however, to be regarded rather as suggestions of what ought to be the conduct of nations in particular circumstances than as a statement of established rules. They are entitled to the same weight in the decision of national disputes as a treatise on natural law is entitled to in the decision of a case by the courts of America or England. [Emphasis added.]
I’m working on a definition for Natural Born Citizen to be submitted to the Urban Dictionary. The current definitions there are highly unsatisfactory and have net negative response from those who rate them.
This blog has published definitions before including:
Unfortunately my original article is far too long to fit the 1500 character limit of the Urban Dictionary, and in any case, I want something short and easy to read. So here is a draft for comment. Keep in mind that the following is just 38 characters under the limit, so I can’t add anything substantial without removing something else.
A US Circuit Court said “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.” US v. Rhodes (1866). This principle has been cited approvingly by subsequent courts including the US Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that said:
“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, … The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Continue Reading →