How a Class E Chauffeur’s License and the Supremacy Clause can Cure UBER’s insurance issues, unfair tax and regulation exemptions, and their monopolistic practices against taxi companies and contract drivers

October 8, 2016

October 4, 2016

A New Mexico Class ‘E’ Chauffeur’s License will Solve Uber Safety Issues

The Transportation Network Services Act is Preempted by the Supremacy Clause

Predatory Pricing and Vertically Integrated Monopoly

Uber Contractors Operating Without Insurance

Synopsis:

The 2016 NM Transportation Network Services Act [TNSA] is only six-months old, but is fatally flawed.

It is in direct conflict with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] regulations and definitions, and its insurance ‘scheme’ has gaps of non-coverage.

Especially as the Uber app facilitates interstate transportation, it is subject to federal laws the TNSA purports Uber exempt. Therefore, New Mexico’s TNSA is preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

New Mexico’s legislature was pressured into accommodating Uber, however, the Uber phenomenon is not a ‘new’ technology requiring special treatment. Uber did not invent GPS or first associate Smartphone GPS with a tracking app. Uber did, however, use Disruptive Marketing to take over local taxi business, forcing its way in while hiding from regulators in the ‘ether’ of the Internet, openly challenging state enforcement of regulations, business taxes; and while violating antitrust law.

In comparison, nine months prior to Uber, Call-A-Cab® launched a GPS taxi logistics ‘peer-to-peer’ website perfect for Smartphones, but also accessible by PC, tablet, and landlines. And Call-A-Cab did it legally.

The following analysis of the 2016 NM TNSA is not intended to put Uber out of business. Uber is a very popular Smartphone app. However, the State of New Mexico must modernize its Motor Carrier and MVD statutes in order to promote its legitimate interest in public safety, and end Uber’s monopolistic practices of predatory pricing and blocking competition.

The current Uber business model, as described in the TNSA, unfairly exploits its contractors and their vehicles, perpetuates monopolistic practices, and at times leaves drivers and passengers completely uninsured.

On the other hand, if the measures suggested in this analysis are adopted, Uber can continue doing business, its contract drivers will have more opportunities earn a fair income, and taxi companies and their drivers can participate as well.

In 2011, the first 4G LTE Broadband Smartphones were introduced (3G was not fast enough to handle streaming GPS data) and in 2013 Albuquerque taxi driver, Leonard Daneman, launched the Call-A-Cab® GPS Taxi Logistics website. https://taxiabq.com He also designed a GPS tracking website called GPS ON TIME. http://www.gpsontime.com

Uber and Lyft entered the Albuquerque market illegally in 2014 and in 2015 their Predatory Pricing practices decimated local taxi fleets. Call-A-Cab® was in striking distance of competing head-to-head with Uber, but Uber dropped their rates from $2.25 to 85 cents per mile. Call-A-Cab went from thirty subscribed drivers (our target for optimal logistics was fifty) to only four.

Added: November 13, 2016–Desoto Cab Company of San Francisco agrees with my year of complaints against Uber’s Predatory Pricing and on November 2, 2016 filed Desoto vs. Uber in Federal Court. See Desoto Cab Co vs Uber Technologies

While Call-A-Cab’s website redirects about $10,000 in taxi customers to three cab companies, no cab company will adopt Call-A-Cab’s GPS logistics to its dispatch office. Yellow Cab liked Call-A-Cab and eventually computerized its dispatch office, but at that time did not appreciate the value of Call-A-Cab’s peer-to-peer website; which is unfortunate because it would have put Yellow Cab a year ahead of Uber and Lyft.

iconubercac

Smartphone Icon

UBER can be subjected to state and federal Motor Carrier safety regulations simply by adopting the Class E Chauffeur’s License into New Mexico law.

 

IN ADDITION, once Uber is brought into compliance, existing taxi companies and drivers can participate and profit while providing superior services to the public, not just smartphone users.

Uber has fatal flaws. Its insurance scheme at times leaves Uber drivers uninsured. In addition, Call-A-Cab’s GPS website does what Uber can’t: it can distribute calls both through taxi dispatch and directly to drivers from business landlines, accept cash fares, and its interactive GPS Logistics Map can specify types of vehicles and passenger capacity.

The Class E Chauffeur’s License

A good model to follow is the law used by the state of Missouri. They force Uber into the federal definition of ‘for hire,’ require ‘taxi’ license plates, and also control proof of commercial insurance. Some states require periodic vehicle inspections. Commercial vehicle inspections can be monitored by taxi companies who are already organized to facilitate Motor Carrier Act compliance.

Taxi Companies Will Not Just Survive, But Profit

Taxi companies not only lease taxicabs, but micromanage Motor Carrier Act compliance. The state Class E license application would take over the initial driver tests, checks, and inspections; the taxi companies would then take over compliance oversight charging a monthly fee to both Uber and taxi drivers using personal cars for commercial passenger transport.

Uber created the Transportation Network Services Act [TNSA] to avoid taxes and obstruct regulation under federal and state Motor Carrier laws, however, that in itself may be its undoing:         

Question:       Is New Mexico’s 2016 Transportation Network Services Act [TNSA] preempted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA]?

Answer:          Yes. A state statute must not conflict with, contradict, or obstruct enforcement of federal law. Under public policy and legitimate state interest, commercial interstate transportation of passengers is subject to federal and state safety regulations.

Conclusion:    A New Mexico Class E license would facilitate ‘for hire’ drivers meeting New Mexico Motor Carrier Act, FMCSA safety, and commercial insurance regulations.

Discussion:     Generally speaking, a state statute is preempted by the Supremacy Clause if it violates, contradicts or obstructs enforcement of federal law. Azar vs Prudential Insurance Company, 68 P.3d 909 (2003) 133 N.M. 669 2003-NMCA-062[1]

The New Mexico Motor Carrier Act regulates commercial transportation as public policy; the state having legitimate interest in the safety and welfare of citizens using ‘for hire,’ or commercial cars and taxis. State Motor Carrier regulations follow FMCSA guidelines.

These regulations, from which Uber declares itself exempt, apply to Uber even more considering Uber operates not only locally but as an Interstate Carrier. Just set your Uber app’s destination from Albuquerque to Denver or El Paso, and you will see for yourself.

The following section of Uber’s 2016 Transportation Network Services Act [TNSA] is in conflict with Federal law:

SECTION 3. NOT OTHER CARRIERS.–Transportation network companies and transportation network company drivers shall not be subject to the Motor Carrier Act or deemed[2] to provide any transportation service as defined in the Motor Carrier Act. A transportation network company driver shall not be required to register a personal vehicle as a commercial vehicle or vehicle for hire.[3]

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations; General

  • 390.5: Definitions. Driver means any person who operates any commercial motor vehicle. . . . For-hire motor carrier means a person engaged in the transportation of goods or passengers for compensation;

 As followed by the Missouri Class E License:

Individuals who may need to obtain a Class E license include:

  • Daycare employees.
  • Uber or Lyft drivers.
  • Limo drivers.
  • Taxi drivers.
http://www.dmv.org/mo-missouri/special-licenses.php#Class-E-Drivers-Licenses

Uber’s Predatory Pricing and Monopolistic Insurance Scheme

Uber’s proprietary app and insurance are essentially ‘non-compete’ conditions in their driver contract creating a Vertically Integrated Monopoly. There is no reasonable non-fleet commercial insurance available for other business models and Uber drivers aren’t insured if they stray from the Uber app.

The insurance scheme approved for the Transportation Network Services Act is not standard commercial insurance, but an electronically controlled scheme tied directly to the Uber app. Unless they have their own commercial insurance, Uber drivers have limited or no insurance under some circumstances while in Part A and B.

In addition, if an Uber driver takes a ‘personal’ call, they are operating with ZERO liability insurance. These are serious ‘gaps’ in Uber insurance and underwriters in some states are scrambling to create ‘gap insurance.’ But, that is not good enough.

Also in violation of Antitrust law is Uber’s past year of dropping their rates from $2.25 to 85 cents per mile. Not only is this incredibly exploitive of Uber drivers and cars, it is Predatory Pricing according to both state and federal Antitrust law.

Predatory Pricing is a foreign corporation using below cost prices with the intent[4] to take over a local market (predation), knowing that increasing prices without competition will recover their losses (recoupment).[5]

A pricing scheme secondary to Uber’s predation is their refusal to collect gross receipts taxes from fares collected through the app, or pay gross receipts on commissions paid out to drivers.[6] Uber evaded taxes from their inception, but legalized their tax fraud scheme in the vague language of the 2016 TNSA, Section 18:

SECTION 18. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY.–

  1. No municipality or other local entity may impose a tax on or require a license for a transportation network company, a transportation network company driver or a vehicle used by a transportation network company driver where a tax or license relates to providing prearranged rides or subjects a transportation network company to the municipality’s or other local entity’s rate, tax, license, entry, operational or other requirements, except for generally applicable business licenses or taxes.

This is unfortunate and unfair to legal taxi companies, and Call-A-Cab. The only way to correct this inequity is to preempt and or repeal the TNSA through the Supremacy Clause. 

Added: November 13, 2016–Desoto Cab Company of San Francisco agrees with my year of complaints against Uber’s Predatory Pricing and on November 2, 2016 filed Desoto vs. Uber in Federal Court. See Desoto Cab Co vs Uber Technologies

Summary of a Statutory Solution:

  1. Class E License — Uber drivers fall under the federal definition of ‘for hire’ and must apply for a Class E Chauffeur’s License. That would resolve the federal and state safety issues now ignored by Uber. Federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause would void Uber’s TNSA exemptions.
  2. With a Class E License and reasonable non-fleet (half the operational hours) ‘for hire’ commercial insurance, GPS ‘peer-to-peer’ logistics will be available to all citizens including hospitals, hotels, bars, restaurants, and anyone using just a landline.
  3. It is known nationwide that Uber’s commercial insurance has holes in coverage. Many states are scrambling to create ‘gap’ insurance.[7] Once the Class E license is law, the insurance companies must provide an appropriate commercial insurance policy (not a ‘gap’ patch) for ‘personal’ cars used for-hire. At about half the rate of fleet taxis leased ‘24/7,’ this insurance will be affordable as a fixed business cost for all but the most ‘part-time’ drivers.
  4. These solutions will permit both Uber and Taxi drivers to accept calls through Call-A-Cab’s GPS Logistics, or any other competing dispatch services for independent contract carriers.

I would appreciate your interest in my years of research and building Call-A-Cab. The next step, with your support and approval, is scheduling a presentation before the NMPRC.

 

[1] {30} Federal law may preempt state law under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, by “express provision, by implication, or by a conflict between federal and state law.” New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 654, 115 S.Ct. 1671, 131 L.Ed.2d 695 (1995); Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 6, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683. “The purpose of the preemption doctrine is to allow Congress to promulgate a uniform federal policy without states frustrating it through either legislation or judicial interpretation.” Largo v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 2002-NMCA-021, ¶ 6, 131 N.M. 621, 41 P.3d 347. Courts, however, apply a strong presumption against preemption, particularly in areas of law that are traditionally left to state regulation. Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 8, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683; Montoya v. Mentor Corp., 1996-NMCA-067, ¶ 7, 122 N.M. 2, 919 P.2d 410. {31} “Whether federal law preempts state law is generally a question of congressional intent.” Srader v. Verant, 1998-NMSC-025, ¶ 7, 125 N.M. 521, 964 P.2d 82. “`When Congress has considered the issue of preemption and has included in the 921*921 legislation a provision expressly addressing the issue,’ we need only identify the domain expressly preempted by the federal statute and may infer that matters beyond that domain are not preempted.” Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 6, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (quoting Montoya, 1996-NMCA-067, ¶ 8, 122 N.M. 2, 919 P.2d 410).

[2] Deem, vb. 1. To treat (something) as if (1) it were really something else, or (2) it has qualities that it doesn’t have . . . Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed. 1999

[3] See also TNSA §§ 2, B. (2) and 2, C.

[4] Uber CEO Kalanick made it publicly known he was out to destroy ‘big taxi.’ http://recode.net/2014/05/28/travis-kalanick-uber-is-raising-more-money-to-fight-lyft-and-the-asshole-taxi-industry/

[5] Below-cost pricing intended to eliminate specific competitors and reduce overall competition is known as predatory pricing. Section 2 disallows this conduct. In Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 509 U.S. 209 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court devised a two-part test to determine if predatory pricing had occurred. First, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s production costs surpass the market price charged for the item. Second, the plaintiff must establish that a “dangerous probability” exists that the defendant will recover the investment in above-cost inputs. In Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc. (05-381) (2007), the Supreme Court said that this test also applies when determining if a predatory bidding scheme exists.

[6] New Mexico Taxation and Revenue could find no gross receipts tax filings for Hinter-NM, LLC, Uber’s registered business name in New Mexico. See Connie L. Dayton, CPS, CFE, CFF, Forensic Tax Auditor, 505-841-6687 connie.dayton@state.nm.us

See  http://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-and-lyft-car-insurance.60340/

Legislative History of INA § 301(g) Proves Mark Levin WRONG About Ted Cruz

February 6, 2016

This article was published by World Net Daily. It is an important legal memorandum and simplifies the constitutional questions of how statute affects terms of art in the original text:

Opinion: Leonard A. Daneman on Ted Cruz Eligibility

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/ted-cruzs-eligibility-tied-to-womens-rights-movement/

Legislative History of INA § 301(g)

The Citizenship of Ted Cruz Tied to Women’s Rights Movement

[Personal Note:   Why should I care? That is the $10 Trillion Question. If the Obama presidency had been blocked by the ‘birthers,’ perhaps our National Debt wouldn’t have doubled!

My response to Ms. Clemon’s comment summarizes the legal question: “So, the question is if the Harvard article or mine is in the public interest: Does the introduction of foreign nationality to a child who claims being a natural born citizen benefit the presidency viz Article II, or the singular citizenship of a child born of two U.S. citizens as it was from the beginning satisfy the intent of the framers?”

Here is another salient point: If the nationality of the father is inconsequential, then only the citizenship of the mother matters. After all, a child of a U.S. citizen father or alien father is eligible as long as the mother was a U.S. citizen!

How about Prof. Lawrence Tribe, who put so much weight on ‘native born’ that a child of two aliens, legal or illegal, is eligible to the presidency, just as long as they were born on U.S. soil.

Modern Americans have a ‘perception’ of Naturalization; not real knowledge. When you mention naturalization, they think of a courtroom with a U.S. flag and a line of new immigrants with their right hands raised giving the oath of allegiance.

Hopefully, after you read this article  (about 1700 words) on naturalization and repatriation of married women with children, you will understand that the framers would have never intended the child of an alien father eligible to the presidency; even if a so-called ‘citizen at birth.’ Alexander Hamilton proposed a version of Article II that specified a child ‘born a U.S. citizen,’ but John Jay insisted on a ‘natural born citizen,’ which cannot be created or changed by naturalization Law.

Ted Cruz’ citizenship through his mother was created by Naturalization Law. The 1952 statute separated him from Canadian citizenship upon moving to the U.S. at age four, and repatriated him through his mother. And so he is not eligible to run for the presidency.

Naturalization laws that gave Ted Cruz citizenship rights from birth were and still can be altered and changed, man-made. However, birth from two U.S. citizen parents is outside and independent of man-made law, and therefore a ‘natural’ born citizen.]

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

INA § 301 g. a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States.

Not all, but many legal professionals conclude that because Ted Cruz was a ‘citizen at birth,’ he is Article II eligible to the presidency.

However, at the time of the framers there were only four ways to become a citizen:

  1. You were a citizen of one of the states at the time of adoption of the  constitution
  2. You were born to a U.S. citizen father (more on the mother later)
  3. Your father naturalized while you were a minor child
  4. You naturalized after reaching the age of majority

Under both our First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 and the British Nationality Act of 1772, a child was the same foreign nationality as the father. Children were born with the father’s nationality through sanguinity, through blood, a legitimate and natural inheritance.

Now, consider this fact: That at the time of the framers and over 100-years of our history, Ted Cruz would have only become a citizen of the United States under #4 in the list above.

Based on both British and United States law, even if the mother was born a U.S. citizen, being married to a Canadian or British subject her child born in the United States would not be a U.S. citizen. And Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

So, I ask you the following:

  1. Would the framers and Article II as written and intended consider Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?
  2. Under 1930’s naturalization law, did repatriation to the United States of a mother with minor children, married to an alien father, revise Article II as written and intended? (See Intermediate Scrutiny Test)

The answer to both is ‘No.’

While naturalization law was once uncomplicated, the women’s rights movement unintentionally created a dichotomy in the legal doctrine of sanguinity, requiring an expansion of naturalization laws to deal with dual nationality at birth and repatriation.

What is Naturalization?

The Illinois Board of Elections decided that Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen. “The board distinguished between natural born and naturalized citizens, pointing out that Cruz did not have to take any steps to go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.”

By ‘process’ the board makes a common mistake, only seeing naturalization as that of an adult renouncing one citizenship (Ted Cruz renounced Canadian citizenship in 2014) and being permitted to take the Oath of Allegiance for U.S. citizenship. However, there is more to naturalization, as can be seen in the extensive body of law.

A minor’s nationality is affected by actions of parents; and which parent’s citizenship applies to the child comes under naturalization law. What happens when the child is born in another country, or to one alien parent? What happens when the child lives as one nationality, but before reaching the age of majority wishes to assume the other? This is also naturalization and includes numerous conditions and requirements as part of the legal ‘process.’

Minor vs Happersett (1875) declared, in a case involving a woman’s right to vote, it was ‘never doubted’ that the child of two U.S. citizen parents was a natural born citizen. And to this day it is still only that particular birth circumstance (even if born outside the U.S.) that produces a citizen naturally, without having to remove dual nationality of the minor with naturalization law.

The Evolution of Naturalization Law and Dual Nationality

The 14th Amendment is best-known for its ‘born in the United States’ and ‘equal protection’ clauses. However, it was written specifically for children born of freed black slaves. Because the father had no national allegiance or citizenship to confer to his children (See Dred Scott, and the 1866 Civil Rights Act) the legislature had to rely on, for the first time in U.S. naturalization law, birth on U.S. soil (jus soli).

The 19th and 20th century saw changes in the institution of marriage, racial inclusion, and legitimization of nullius fillius (children of unwed mothers) that required broader applications of sanguinity (inheritance by blood) if not a complete departure from it (1898). The application of ‘equal protection’ to sanguinity, until then only through the husband, created the previously unheard of concept of Dual Nationality.

Women’s Claims to Equal Citizenship Rights 1922-1940

Yale Law Journal Volume 123 Number 7, p. 2134-2573 ‘Illegitimate Borders: Jus Sanguinis Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation,’ Kristin A. Collins

The reaction of some committee members to women’s claims to gender equality reveals a strong commitment to those traditional modes of regulating nationality. For example, in 1922, Richard Flournoy—then an assistant solicitor in the Department of State and later a member of the interdepartmental committee—found the idea that a married woman would maintain her American citizenship upon marriage to a foreigner “very objectionable” on the ground that it was “obviously a direct blow at the principle of family unity”—a reference to the principles of coverture[1] that resulted in women’s loss of independent civil identity upon marriage. In 1934 Congress passed a statute that gave American women the ability to transmit citizenship to their foreign-born children with no explicit racial limitations.

A Woman’s Loss of U.S. Citizenship: Laws of Coverture

Prior to modern women’s rights, when a woman married a man she assumed a subordinate legal status to that of the husband. Before today’s no-contest divorce, communal property, and intestate succession laws, inheritance laws didn’t give a woman equal rights to property; they favored the husband’s side of the family.

In the same light, if marrying an alien she lost her U.S. citizenship. So, from the time of the framers and into the 1930’s, it was understood that only a U.S. citizen husband produced U.S. citizen children, natural born through sanguinity, father and mother together.

American women who married an alien would not only lose U.S. citizenship but produce alien children (1922):

  • 369. (a) A woman who has lost her United States citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien eligible to citizenship or by reason of the loss of United State citizenship by her husband may, if eligible to citizenship and if she has not acquired any other nationality by affirmative action, be naturalized upon full and complete compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws, with the following exceptions: . . . (Repealed by act Oct. 14, 1940)

The 19th Amendment finally extended the vote to women in 1920. The 1922 Cable Act permitted repatriation to the United States if an American woman lost citizenship by marrying a foreigner. Her children would then gain U.S. citizenship with her. Other challenges were based on the ‘equal rights clause’ of the 14th Amendment, successfully comparing Coverture to slavery.

Over time, the legal doctrine of Coverture was finally eliminated. However, the retention of pre-marital U.S. citizenship created a bifurcated marriage, a dichotomy of nationalities requiring new naturalization laws to determine the child’s nationality and citizenship throughout the course of the marriage/dissolution, until the child reached the age of majority. In fact, Obama had three nationalities from birth to reaching adulthood.

However, to this day a ‘natural born citizen’ must be interpreted how the framers chose it to mean, and why; children of U.S. citizens without alienage had no possible foreign allegiance or affiliation. As specifically expressed by John Jay to George Washington, this was to avoid ‘foreign intrigue’ from the highest office of the land. Only a U.S. citizen ‘naturally born’ was immune from changes in naturalization law, natural law versus naturalization.

1933 Statute for Child Born Outside the United States Not a ‘Citizen at Birth’

Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United Sates previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and reside therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Labor. Am. June 10, 1933, Ex. Or. 6166, § 14; and May 24, 1934, c. 344, § 1. 48 Stat. 797. [emphasis added]

The term ‘citizenship at birth’ was not yet applied in the law.

Ted Cruz was Born December 22, 1970

Finally, the phrase ‘citizen at birth’ is used in the law.

The laws grew to accommodate women giving birth to children with dual nationality; specifically the 1940 statutes were repealed and replaced in 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7) [INA § 301(a)(7)] as originally enacted by Act of June 27, 1952;

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

[A] person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents, one of whom is a non-citizen, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totally not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

That law was liberalized and codified in 1986 as INA § 301(g); 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g).

Through women’s rights and equality protection under the law, the concept of sanguinity was extended through the mother as it was, previously, only through the father; however dual nationality was a concept completely foreign to the framers and is, as you can see, the reason for the vast body of naturalization law necessary to remove any alienage created in a child at birth, or even temporary loss of citizenship due to unintentional expatriation of the mother. Only a natural born citizen, a child of two U.S. citizen parents, is immune from and undefined by naturalization law.

 

YouTube Boosts Call-A-Cab

September 7, 2015

Call-A-Cab gets great exposure on Google Search, but ‘new’ searches are way down which I attribute to Uber’s illegal penetration of the regular taxi user market. They just don’t have to ‘search’ anymore for ‘taxi.’

Those who use Call-A-Cab love it, for the fact they can use cash and don’t have to download an app . . . and it works very well, even easier to use than Uber.

Call-A-Cab on YouTube

Recent Court Decisions’ Unintentional Consequences, Making the Bible Unlawful Speech

April 17, 2014

Image

I am trained as a portrait and wedding photographer and this photo, 50 x 50 inches, hangs outside my small studio on a major thoroughfare. I also studied law in an ABA certified paralegal program.

In New Mexico, I had personal interaction with major players in the Gay Marriage laws, the author of the senate bill giving homosexuals special privileges in the Human Rights Act and the judge in the recent Elane vs. Willock wedding photography case. I was a student of the senator and read the original bill as drafted, and I sued the judge who wrote the majority opinion in Elane, twice.

I wrote a letter of protest to that senator, copied below. In it, I made two distinct conclusions of law and included a warning:

1) Same-sex couples cannot consummate and therefore ‘perfect’ marriage contract. Marriage law does not have provisions for same-sex partners, the law governing from ‘I do’ to ‘dissolution’ protects the spouse, children, and controls the distribution of property.

2) The above concludes that same-sex partners cannot contract under marriage law. Further proof is that any natural issue, children, from either partner, is per se ‘out-of-wedlock.’ Logic dictates, therefore, there was no wedlock, i.e., the ‘marriage’ is void ab initio.

However, the constitution guarantees the state cannot interfere in contract, and same-sex partners can contract to gain equal protections and rights. This is not a ‘separate but equal’ violation, because you cannot conflate Coitus with Sodomy.

Finally, if the Human Rights Act in New Mexico prevails, as does this horrible decision of the Court of Appeals forcing any wedding photographer into contract or face punitive fines, then the court through this horrible judge, a law-breaker and scoundrel, essentially makes the bible unlawful speech.

I see a possibility that a minister or civil servant will be prosecuted or fired if forced to solemnize a same-sex marriage, or issue marriage licenses; their refusal based on intimate belief in the bible, that homosexuality is the Sin of Sodom and not to be tolerated or associated with.

Nevertheless, will it come to the point when reading or citing scripture concerning homosexuality, the Sin of Sodom, is unlawful speech? I believe the United States has been protected by angels, but the Homosexual Agenda for Marriage and Roe vs. Wade Abortion have distanced our nation, the People, from Heavenly protection. For this reason, I make my case and publish it for those who have a heart to understand.

LETTER

to

State Senator Cisco McSorley

Dear Mr. McSorley,

I am a former student, Business Law at TVI, over ten years ago.

Gay Marriage laws are Lochnerean as they pit the police power of the state against existing contract law, history, and tradition. The state, to exert police power, must have a legitimate interest in the creation of same sex marital contract.

Yes, the state has considerable interest in marriage; the point proven when one reviews the considerable body of law that has grown out of ‘I do,’ ‘I now pronounce,’ all the way to Divorce, Probate, and Intestate Succession. You see, Marriage not only is formation of a special partnership but extends to its dissolution requiring consideration of children, who are not directly privy to the original contract, or oath, except through bloodline.

The state high courts invoked the 14th Amendment (NM Const Art 2 § 18), but they misapplied ‘equal protection’ which in that clause specifies the sexes, male and female, not various forms of ‘sexuality,’ even if Homosexuals have recently become a ‘protected class.’ This was false logic; a weak if not impossible conflation of terms, or at worse an unconstitutional revision.

In addition, Justice Holmes’ famous ‘history and tradition’ must be considered, and the bible is an indelible foundation to our tenets, morals and body of law, if not vital precedent. In this case, the court has revised law and contract that effectively makes the bible itself unlawful.

Natural Law must not be violated; indeed, the courts have no jurisdiction over Natural Law. Therefore, God of the bible as the source/creator of all Natural Law, ‘nature’s law,’ is that ‘light’ that reveals the truth and creates both shadows and penumbras; not a careless misinterpretation of law by human judges.[1]

The state is now exercising its power in defiance of history, tradition, and may I add nature. Poor Elane and her husband can never again freely engage in her ‘liberty to contract’ wedding photography and is forced to either accept gay marriage or pay the fine (Cf. Islamic ‘jizyah’).

The state (Judge Tim Garcia in the NM Court of Appeals) unconstitutionally interfered with her right of contract (wedding photography is not a ‘service’ per se). Therefore, the state has chosen an illogical conflation of rights and protections in defiance of Natural Law, History, Tradition, and Liberty of Contract, while declaring the bible unlawful in the process.

Same Sex Marriage Void Ab Initio

The act of consummation, coitus, is an essential element of the marriage contract (with rare medical exemptions if known by the parties), for without issue, a bloodline, the bulk of the law is irrelevant and the contract imperfect, a sham, void ab initio.

In a same sex ‘marriage,’ any natural issue from either member of a same sex partnership is automatically ‘out of wedlock,’ and therefore logic prevails in the conclusion that no wedlock existed, or could exist in the first place.

Tim Garcia

Tim Garcia and I go way back, to 1998, when I introduced him to the original owners of TowerPlaza. As thanks, Tim forced me out of my photography studio, but I was able to rebuild on the 5th Floor under a new 5-year lease. Tim hired an incompetent elevator maintenance company who miswired the door actuator, frying the relays. My new wedding and portrait photography studio was closed, only five months after completing extensive renovations. I had only shot one wedding.

I fought Garcia in small claims court and won, but my attorney refused to submit his legal fees, over $2000, which exceeded any savings in abated rent. I petitioned Judge Roderick T. Kennedy to remove my attorney of record so I could submit the motion for attorney fees and injunctive relief, but he refused time and time again until his jurisdiction expired.

When Tim Garcia refused to fix the elevator, interpreting Kennedy’s judgment in my favor as an order I operate in an out of code and illegal condition for the contracted term of the lease, I sued in Federal court pro se under ADA Title III and Continuing Nuisance as a New Cause of Action.

The judge denied my jury trial, dismissing the case. However, Tim Garcia was fired from his LLC manager position, was forced to sell his membership, and had to close his law offices in Santa Fe.

[1] Read the original Wall of Separation sermon by Roger Williams, and despite Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists and J. Hugo Black creating the Separation of Church and State, there is no ‘wall,’ but the bible itself protecting a just society from lawlessness.

Facebook Post on Gay Marriage Laws

February 17, 2014

https://www.facebook.com/leonard.daneman/posts/239001269618617?notif_t=like

Letter to Mark Levin, Esq., through Landmark Legal

November 24, 2013

1) Fogbow —  Here is more fodder for your insulting commentary. You attack my character and curriculum vitae but cannot touch my citation of history and law. Hmmm. I admit, I failed to enter law school; that was due to succumbing to Guillain-Barre’, which 8 years later I am still recovering from. What is your excuse?

2) On a recent radio broadcast, attorney Mark Levin lambasted so-called ‘birthers’ in his analysis of why Ted Cruz was eligible to the presidency. The broadcast was particularly disturbing because of the tone of voice Levin took, and his acquittal of the subject admitting no discussion or debate, “Case Closed,” so to speak.

The following is my formal response to conservative pundit and activist, Mark Levin:

Re:      Mark Levin’s mistaken citation of the 1940 Aliens and Nationality Act

 

Sirs:

Thomas Jefferson advised reading the constitution as originally constructed.[1] Therefore, Mr. Levin’s reliance on the 1940 Act was fatally flawed; as one must go back to nationality law as the framers knew it.

 

There were two controlling statutes at the time of the writing of Article II, i.e., jurisdiction over a child born of a British father on U.S. soil. According to both the 1772 British Nationality Act and the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790, et seq 1855, if Obama was born in the United  States in the time of the framers, he would not be a U.S. citizen, let alone a natural born one.

 

There was no conflict between the two laws; Obama would be a British subject, just as he admitted in his biographies.

 

Place of birth citizenship has roots in an obscure 1608 common law case, but had no place in law governing who was a U.S. citizen at birth, let alone a natural born citizen.[2] There is only one Supreme Court case providing insight into natural born citizenship as judicial notice, Minor vs. Happersett.[3]

 

Therefore, Obama, regardless of the marital status of his U.S. citizen mother, required a U.S. citizen father to be a natural born citizen.

 

True, the abandonment of the father triggered provisions in modern nationality law making Obama a ‘citizen at birth,’ however; the maiden nationality of the wife or mother had no contribution to the nationality of the child until the 1920s and 1930s.

 

The Cause of Our National Cognitive Dissonance

 

During one of Mr. Levin’s radio shows, he disagreed that congress has plenary power over naturalization law. Yet, that is what Art I, Sec 8 assigns.

 

Courts have assumed, unconstitutionally, jurisdiction over naturalization cases. The most tragic was Wong Kim Ark in which the 1898 court ignored 108-years of existing nationality law and wrote new law, in direct conflict with existing law and a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

 

Wong Kim Ark created, by legislation from the bench, a new, unstatutory standard of ‘born in the United   States’ citizenship, regardless of the nationality, alienage, or immigration status of the parents. It ignored the legislative history of the 14th Amendment and its preamble more accurately defining the ‘under the jurisdiction’ clause as “born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,’ e.g., freed negro slaves had no nationality. Their children had no nationality through either jus solis or sanquinis. (See, the 1866 Civil Rights Act.)

 

Another case was Schneiderman (1944) in which the court ignored a challenge to a communist activist’s naturalization that was in direct violation of 8 U.S.C. 1424. The court continued asserting its jurisdiction over naturalization and nationality law through ‘cases and controversies,’ electing to ignore the congress. This continues today in such cases as Plyler vs Doe which ignored Texas law.

 

How to Stop Obama

 

Just before the release of Dr. Jerome Corsi’s book, ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate,’ whitehouse.gov published a forged PDF birth certificate. That the document was altered, in itself, was a violation of federal law. The evidence has been made public by law enforcement investigators. As a photographer, my Adobe software instantly revealed ‘histories’ of manipulation of the PDF, carelessly left in the file by the White House. A mere ‘flattening’ of the image would have erased the art histories of manipulation.

 

Nevertheless, the originalist perception of ‘natural born citizen’ was not merely ‘born on U.S. soil.’ Records from that period reveal the framers discriminating between Alexander Hamilton’s ‘born a citizen’ versus John Jay’s term of art, ‘natural born citizen’ as used in Article II.

 

I have this debated with U.S. congressmen, and my conclusion is that because they are trained as lawyers, they kowtow to judicial precedent over legislative history. The ‘birther’ issue is powerful, nonetheless. It was the way to stop Obama in the first place, and it has the added benefit of repairing our broken immigration system. All congress has to do is revise 8 U.S.C. 1401 with the legislative history of the 14th Amendment[4] and Obama’s presidency is erased, and our borders re-established.

 

Sincerely, [etc.]


[1] “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

[2] See ‘The Case of Mr. Smith,’ in which Madison prevailed on the principle of place of birth, but Dr. Ramsey’s treatise on citizenship at birth was the basis for the 1790 First Uniform Naturalization Act. 22 May 1789, Madison’s Papers 12:179–82

[3] “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.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

 

New ‘Call-A-Cab’ Internet taxi ‘hailing’ website in Albuquerque

September 10, 2013

Image

While the Paraleaglenm blog is mostly legal research on current events (Nationality Law viz. Obama’s citizenship, George Zimmerman, Islam, Human Rights) I also have another blog, ‘Taxi-Journals.’

This is to announce a new website, www.taxiabq.com, or ‘Call-A-Cab.’ With Call-A-Cab you can easily locate taxis near your location and call or text them directly.

There is also visitor information for transportation, maps, restaurant reviews, and points-of-interest.

Please visit Call-A-Cab next time you are in Albuquerque, NM.

Thank you, Leonard A. Daneman

 

 

Simple Truth of Immigration Law, viz. Immigration Reform Act

June 21, 2013

There are only two political conditions in which the national allegiance of a father has no bearing on the allegiance or citizenship of the child at birth:

  1. Feudal Monarchy
  2. Slaveholder’s property rights over the issue of his slaves

I want you to think about this as you read further, because the condition of property and subjection is clearly apparent in the above. One would think rights of the father predominate in free societies, especially a constitutional republic in which the government is crafted to be ‘subject’ to the citizens, not the other way around.

As I’ve posted previously, the ratio of illegal to legal immigrants is approximately 10-to-1. For some reason, lawless behavior is the status quo and the result is a broken INS.

Therefore, the so-called Immigration Reform Act is not so much reform but utter ‘liberalization,’ including sections hidden within its one-thousand pages pledging millions in ‘pork’ to activist organizations such as La Raza. Indeed, the cowardice of our congress to control the borders and deport illegal aliens is the cause for ‘liberalization,’ i.e., reform, which in reality is the abrogation of existing law to avoid its constitutional obligations.

Here is an interesting quote from an excellent Wikipedia article, cited by the Boston Bar in their article on Jus Soli (‘right of soil’). http://www.bostonbar.org/sections/international-law/news-archive/2011/11/22/jus-soli

In the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S.649 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” restriction applied only to two additional categories: children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory. The Court also rejected the government’s attempt to limit Section 1 of the 14th Amendment by arguing it was intended solely to allow former slaves and their descendants to become citizens.

Actually, the latter part of the quote rejecting ‘the government’s attempt to limit’ is the key to understanding our current immigration crisis. The ‘government’ this article refers to was the U.S. Attorney in his brief [http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA] before the Wong Kim Ark. Unfortunately, only two out of nine justices of that court, including the Chief Justice, dissented, and vigorously. (Search ‘Chief Justice Fuller Wong Kim Ark Dissent’)

Indeed, the law as it stood from our nation’s beginnings, from the first Naturalization Act to its last intact revision in 1855 required a U.S. citizen Father for a child, as a minor or at birth, to be a U.S. citizen. There was no ‘right’ of soil, i.e., jus soli.

Therefore, the ‘government’ in Wong Kim Ark was correct; the 7:2 SCOTUS majority was wrong. However, many congressmen and jurists are stuck with the idea that Calvin’s Case (1608) is a common law principle adopted by the states, which just isn’t true! In fact, the English law most valuable as controlling law is the 1772 British Nationality Act, which is jus sanguinis, not jus soli.

Indeed, the 14th Amendment, a summary of the Reconstruction Acts after the Civil War, specifically the 1866 Civil Rights Act, was to protect the rights of slaves, and to remove their ‘stateless’ condition.

In fact, that stateless condition as property resulted in no nationality passed on to their children, revealing that jus sanguinis (blood of the father) was the law of the land (pun intended) and jus soli had to be conjured up, resurrected so to speak, from Gothic laws from two centuries previous, from a case called Calvin’s Case (1608). How awkward and inappropriate to cite ancient law, and foreign law too.

Some jurists say that jus soli is part of our common law tradition, inherited from English common law. Two things bely that judicial notice: 1) The 1772 British Nationality Act invoked jus sanguinis as its primary principle toward the recognition of natural born subjects, and 2) English common law was, in our earliest case law, denied stare decisis status, unless that cited law was specifically approved in the state’s highest court. [citations omitted]

As you may see now, the ‘birthright’ soil citizenship conjured up by the Wong Kim Ark majority is what created our out of control immigration problem, and must be ended. The Boston Bar suggests that Wong Kim Ark, even if in error, has been on the books so long only a constitutional amendment can change it. However, Art 1, Sec 8 gives congress plenary power over Naturalization law, and it can correct the Ark court’s misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment’s ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ as being derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s similar preamble, ‘born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.’

Of course, activists will take that revision/addition/clarification to 8 USC 1401 to the Supreme Court, but I feel the legislature would prevail.

The Immigration Reform Fiasco

June 3, 2013

I am a legal analyst who studied this topic almost exclusively over the course of three years. The law discussed below was debated heatedly on-line and discussed at length with two congressmen, Thaddeus McCotter (MI) and Michael Burgess (TX). As a paralegal I’ve done litigation and critical research for a few attorneys, as well as bestselling author Jerome Corsi.

So, prior to exposing you to my research, let me acknowledge that most Americans are biased cognitively that being born on U.S. soil makes any child a citizen, with a few traditional exceptions. I will prove that this is a misconception created by a flawed Supreme Court case in 1898, Wong Kim Ark.

From the first common law cases, British law was denied as having precedential value unless the high court of the state recognized that law. There are numerous court holdings to this effect, however I will only cite from a January 11, 1800 notice from the Virginia General Assembly to its Senators:

“Deeply impressed with these opinions, the general assembly of Virginia instruct the senators, and request the representatives from this State, in Congress, to use their best efforts — To oppose the passing of any law, founded on, or recognizing the, principle lately advanced, “that the common law of England is in force under the government of the United States, excepting from such opposition such particular parts of the common law as may have a sanction from the Constitution, so far as they are necessarily comprehended in the technical phrases which express the powers delegated to the government; …. and excepting, also, such other parts thereof as may be adopted by Congress as necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers expressly delegated.” Tucker’s Blackstone, Appendix, page 438

I will add more citations showing the topic was one of opinion, but the debate over the power of foreign law influencing Supreme Court decisions is also a modern one, a recent justice explaining that foreign law may not be ‘followed, but is instructive nonetheless.’

Pa. 1897. The omission of a statute from the list of English statutes reported by the judges of the Supreme Court as in force in Pennsylvania, 3 Binn. 595, raises a strong presumption that such statute is not in force there. Gardner v. Keihl, 37 A. 829, 182 Pa. 194.

The above holding insists that because the English statute was not included in a ‘list of statutes’ reported, i.e., codified/approved by the Supreme Court, it had no power of stare decisis.

Pa. 1818. The construction of English statutes before the revolution will be given great weight in construing Pennsylvania statutes in pari material. Seidenbender v. Charles, 4 S. & R. 151, 8 Am.Dec. 682.

Again, those English statutes were given weight and were persuasive, but only in analog in construing existing Pennsylvania statutes.

The statutes passed in England before the emigration of our ancestors, which are in amendment of the law, and applicable to our situation, constitute a part of our common law. Pa. 1782. Morris’ Lessee v. Vanderen, 1 Dall. 64, 1 L.Ed. 38. O. & T. 1783. Republica v. Mesca, 1 U.S. 73, 1 Dall. 73. 1 L.Ed. 42.

This final citation is from 1782, prior to the first ratification of the constitution.

While British law is what lawyers studied, American law being in its infancy, the creation of precedent in cases and controversies not subject entirely to police or statutory enforcement was, obviously, the role of the courts. That is common law by definition.

However, when error in the courts, e.g., considering Calvin’s Case (1608) law is absurd. Yet, some jurists were so Anglo-centric that such was the case:

The opinion of the most celebrated jurist of our country, is, expressly in favour of my position. Judge Tucker, in his notes on Blackstone, not only considers the rule in Calvin’s case to be law, but applies it to the antenati Americans, who he says may hold lands in both countries McIlvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 6 US 280, 311 (1804)

2010 Code of Laws of South Carolina:

SECTION 14-1-50. Common law of England shall continue in effect. [SC ST SEC 14-1-50] All, and every part, of the common law of England, where it is not altered by the Code or inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of this State, is hereby continued in full force and effect in the same manner as before the adoption of this section.

How about Virginia?

The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly. Code 1919, §2, §1-10; 2005, c.839

§ 1-201. Acts of Parliament. The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill Of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly. Code 1919, §3, §1-11; 2005, c.839

Note that the British law cited is respected, but cannot be in conflict with state statute.

This is the core of the debate over Natural Born Citizen viz. Jus Sanguinis vs. Jus Soli. Jus Sanguinis is statutory from 1790 to 1855, changed only by Wong Kim Ark in 1898. However, the constitution gave congress plenary power over naturalization law, not the judiciary. The judiciary cannot create, only enforce naturalization law. Indeed, Wong Kim Ark in even mentioning Calvin’s Case and feudal English common law (indeed, British statute was to the contrary) imposes the conflict warned against in the state codes I cited supra.

Wong Kim Ark was not only an error in its reasoning, but in direct violation of existing statute and constitutional law.

Why is this topic important?

The failure of the Wong Kim Ark court started a chain of events creating our serious immigration problems, the violation of our southern border, and loss of sovereignty in several Southwestern states, especially in their border regions. (Cf. Arizona’s HB 1070.)

Indeed, the clamor for Comprehensive Immigration Reform by McCain/Kennedy (supported by President Bush) cost the Republicans congress in 2006 which lead to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a non-immigrant alien who was a Muslim and a radical Marxist. In fact, this is not only Obama’s heritage, history will show it to be his legacy as well.

If the Republicans do not recognize this issue as vital and overcome their own cognitive dissonance and bias, comprehensive reform (i.e., abandoning existing laws because of the lack of will to enforce them) will be the death knell not just of the Republican Party, but our Constitutional Republic. How? If a nation allows massive influx of aliens who do not fully assimilate, it creates schism and chaos. Elections and the Welfare State will overwhelm the will of traditional citizens. In fact, the granting of drivers licenses in New Mexico is of such a number that they comprise 10% of the electorate. While they are technically not allowed to vote, nobody stops them.

Biblical?

While biblical prophesy is a sensitive subject, the Dream of Nebuchadnezzar interpreted by Daniel, continued in the Revelation of John, described a series of World Powers starting with Egypt and ending with Rome in Daniel, and a final World Power described by the angel to John in direct reference to the ‘feet of clay’ of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of a statue made of many materials.

The ‘feet of clay’ was explained as the final World Power made of potter’s clay and iron, with the appearance initially of strength, but in the end an ineffective foundation. The iron parts represented ‘princes’ from all the nations who comprised the final nation’s citizenry, i.e., immigrants. In fact, the Chinese to this day call Chinese U.S. citizens ‘princes.’

Why I started studying the Aliens and Nationality Act

Starting with the 2008 Phil Berg lawsuit challenging Obama’s citizenship I began a reading of all things related to nationality law, i.e., naturalization, aliens, and nationality.

Phil Berg did not file a frivolous suit, but he did make one error in fact and the law which resulted in a false conclusion: he didn’t realize that because Obama, Sr. was a Muslim polygamist, already married in Kenya, that the marriage to Dunham was void ab initio, therefore Obama, Jr. was a ‘bastard’ (note: the terms of art bastard or illegitimate are not used in modern law). Berg posited in court that Obama was not a U.S. citizen; I pointed out to Berg (much to his chagrin) that statutes provided conferring of citizenship through the mother.

Sstarting with the 1922 Cable Act (Assoc. Justice Ginsberg is quoted noting these statutory provisions for abandoned or unmarried wives married to aliens being from the 1930’s) laws were created to give American women who married aliens the right to confer their ‘maiden’ citizenship to children if abandoned by the alien husband.

The $64,000 Question

Therefore, was Obama a citizen at birth (admitted in his own autobiography a dual national at birth) because of these statutory provisions, or being born in Hawaii?

Granted, being born on U.S. soil was a condition of the statute, but so were Dunham’s age and years of U.S. residency post age fourteen. Conversely, if the father was a U.S. citizen those provisions would not be necessary for citizenship at birth determination. That is a clue how vital the father’s nationality is in determining citizenship.

Place of Birth, or the Father’s Nationality?

The law as interpreted and adjudicated now puts an emphasis on Place of Birth. However, this is from an error in a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision in Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Briefly, Ark was born in the United States to Chinese nationals who were barred from citizenship by the Burlingame Treaty and the Chinese Exclusionary Act. Ark’s parents had no intention to become citizens. In fact, they left the United States to live out the remainder of their lives in China. Their son traveled to China too, but one time on his return he had reached the age of majority and was denied re-entry.

The majority opinion in Ark was written by Assoc. Justice Gray. It was flawed for two major reasons: 1) The court had no jurisdiction over legislated act unless the act was unconstitutional; and, 2) The court did have jurisdiction over Treaty, but did not have the courage to break it. The court, however, did have the courage to impose its power unlawfully over congress’ Article 1, Sec 8 plenary power over Naturalization Law.

The First One Hundred Years of U.S. Nationality and Naturalization Law

From the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 through its revisions through 1855, the nationality of the father was the sole determination of a child’s nationality.

However, this would require Wong Kim Ark to apply for his own citizenship, but that was barred by both the Burlingame Treaty and the Chinese Exclusionary Act. So, the court relied on a feudal law, a British law even Blackstone called ‘Gothic,’ and ruled that because the Ark family had legal domicile in the United States, their son was a citizen because he was born on U.S. soil. In other words, the court claimed the U.S. had sole ‘jurisdiction’ over Ark, not the nationality of the father. This raised the principle of ‘jus soli’ (soil) over ‘jus sanguinis’ (blood).

This ruling was even a fallacious application of the ancient principle of king’s rights of dominion and the jus soli, because even in feudal times the alien with domicile, called a ‘habitant, ‘sojourner,’ or ‘denizen’ had a right to declare his allegiance to his native country and deny the king the birth allegiance of his son.

In addition, it was a standard practice in well-established and recorded U.S. law, from the very beginnings of our judicial system, that British common law had no precedent value unless the high courts of the states specifically codified them. Indeed, Chief Justice Taft in the Weedin vs Chin Bow case, 274 US 657 (1927) observed:

The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, — that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute,..

Please note that the truth was just the opposite; U.S. statute for the first one-hundred years of our Constitutional Republic relied solely on jus sanguinis! His reasoning was not based on fact, or law. It was a massive assumption in direct violation of existing law, which then had to be revised as Title 3, 8 U.S.C. 1401 after the fact!

The 1790 First Naturalization Act and the 1722 British Nationality Act

Further proof the judges were way off base in both Ark and Bow are in the British and U.S. statutes determining citizenship from the very beginnings of our nation and the first congress. In the 1790 Act et seq, a minor child was only a U.S. citizen upon naturalization of the alien father. Conversely, a child born on U.S. soil to a British subject was a natural born British subject.

That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose Fathers were or shall be, . . . intitled to all the Rights and Privileges of natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom. 1772 British Nationality Act

In other words, in the eyes and understanding and statute, an Obama born on U.S. soil, even to an unmarried or married U.S. citizen mother, would be the nationality of the father. Indeed, there was no such concept as dual nationality until modern liberal interpretations of the law, and various provisions of treaty.

Therefore, not only would not see Obama, Jr. as a U.S. citizen, but certainly not an Article II ‘natural born’ citizen, required if he was to run for president.

The 14th Amendment

The 1866 Civil Rights Act was one of the post-Civil War reconstruction acts, guaranteeing citizenship to children of freed slaves. Its preamble defined black children of slaves to be citizens, thusly: ‘children born in the United States to fathers not subject to any foreign power.’

Why? Because as property (re: the Dredd Scott decision) slaves had no nationality and therefore their children were stateless, thus proving the historic primacy of the jus sanguinis principle. Following that logic, if jus soli was always the principle of citizenship at birth, then the 14th Amendment and its precursor act would not have been necessary.

In order to prevent Southern states from revising this Act in future congresses, the 14th Amendment was immediately proposed and passed in 1869, its preamble reading, ‘children born in the United State and under the jurisdiction thereof.’ The debate over the 14th Amendment concentrates on the meaning of ‘jurisdiction,’ however it is nationality jurisdiction (as opposed to local jurisdiction), proven by the precursor preamble in the 1866 Act.

The 1855 Act was revised to reflect the 14th Amendment, following the preamble which you can read in Title 3, 8 U.S.C. 1401.

Does the Law as it now stands make Obama a ‘natural born citizen’?

While the law, as misinterpreted in Ark, makes children of aliens legally domiciled, or now even if not legal (a liberal corruption of Ark itself), citizens at birth, ignoring the national jurisdiction over the father, i.e., native allegiance, scholars agree that Ark did not revise Article II’s natural born citizen.

Some judges conflate ‘citizen at birth’ with ‘natural born citizen,’ reasoning there are only two types of citizens, born or naturalized, but they are in error. “There are only two types of citizens: those who are native born and those who are naturalized.” Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States 45 F.Supp. 61,66 (D. MD 1942)

A child born of alien parents on U.S. soil, even if the mother is a citizen, is a citizen at birth by force of statute, i.e., naturalization law, that statute artificially removing foreign jurisdiction through ‘de-alienage.’ A natural born citizen requires a U.S. citizen father, as that was the law from 1790 to 1855; a misinterpretation of statute by the courts cannot ‘revise’ Article II of the U.S. Constitution, only congress can amend or revise the constitution.

Two Vital statutes from the Aliens and Nationality Act

8 U.S.C. 1424 — denies issuing of visas to anarchists and Marxists. Those politically or religiously opposed to our constitution are ineligible not only for citizenship, but entry and temporary residency in the United States. This was violated by the Schneiderman case, Schneiderman vs. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943), forcing the Secretary State to accept an avowed communist activist’s entry into the United States and his recently acquired citizenship.

If one studies the Koran and Hadiths, and 1300 years of Muslim history, this bar on visas should also apply to all of the Muslim faith (Cf. Obama’s father).

8 U.S.C. 1135 – bars allocation of visas in times of high unemployment.

Obviously, these statutes are not being enforced. Indeed, the proposed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act must address these two issues, or a conflict of law will exist.

Conclusion:

Before you dismiss the above legal position, I suggest you access Chief Justice Fuller’s Dissent in the Wong Kim Ark case. It is cogent and brilliantly written. The Appellant’s Brief in Ark is also available on-line.

The United States has allowed its borders to be violated. Indeed, the Immigration Service expends 30X the effort in dealing with illegal aliens than its true purpose of processing desirable legal aliens.

Furthermore, a misinterpretation of law and multiple violations of jurisprudence created an unconstitutional holding in Wong Kim Ark, a holding that has lead to a complete and radical revision of one-hundred years of statutes controlling immigration and naturalization.

That resulted in the election of an ineligible president, the son not only of an alien father, but a father who was an ideological enemy of the United States viz. his both Muslim religion and as an avowed, radical Marxist.

Finally, if the Republicans co-operate (are bamboozled) in this immigration reform nonsense instead of first ordering control of our Southern border, the party of Lincoln and our constitutional republic will be over. The tyranny, if not fascism, of the current administration will become a permanent fixture in the American politic.

Important links to documents referenced supra:

My Second Blog Revisited – White House KNEW Obamacare would kill private businesses

March 2, 2013

Update December 18, 2014: http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/17/vermonts-giving-up-on-single-payer-health-care-over-ballooning-costs/

After fighting Allstate for four years, I wrote a small ‘law review’ memorandum (3000-words plus citations of news and case law) on why Health Insurance premiums doubled. It was posted March 5, 2009 on WordPress.

The first comment was posted by a ‘sound of reason’ on September 9, 2009. It is worth reading as it suggests the writer had inside information that Obamacare would make my legal analysis irrelevant because private health insurance companies would be put out of business, and I quote:

“this is the most ridiculous xxxx i’ve ever read. an hmo is better protection than an attorney? it is obvious you’ve never dealt with an hmo – or an attorney! hmo’s will only represent their own best interests; based on how they screw their own customers just to increase their own profits, it is beyond comprehension how anyone would envision hmos protecting their customers against liability companies.”

Now, how did ‘sound of reason’ know ‘hmos’ were going to ‘soon be out of business’?

I followed the comment IP address trail back to an e-mail address, which was ‘fishy@whitehouse.gov.’ Now, ‘fishy’ created the whitehouse.gov site for people to report anti-Obama blogs on the Internet. Negative publicity forced it to be taken down, as it was described by some as an ‘enemies list.’
See http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/08/white-house-website-makes-security-changes-amid-email-flap/

Further research revealed ‘fishy’ was, indeed, a major White House operative (gaining notoriety because of his effective use of the Internet) . . . his name is Macon Phillips.

Note the posting date! Prior to forced passage of an unread 2700-page bill in congress the following year.

Therefore, the Democrats forcing (w/o proper reconciliation) to a vote without the 2700-word bill being read was an TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE between doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and patients.

sound of reason
fishy@whitehouse.gov
68.94.213.174

Look how ‘fishy’ wants to control profits. Dummy. State PRCs already control insurance rates based on profit:loss.

Submitted on 2009/09/09 at 12:08 am
this is the most ridiculous xxxx i’ve ever read. an hmo is better protection than an attorney? it is obvious you’ve never dealt with an hmo – or an attorney! hmo’s will only represent their own best interests; based on how they screw their own customers just to increase their own profits, it is beyond comprehension how anyone would envision hmos protecting their customers against liability companies.
if you want to reduce health insurance costs, link the amount of profit that a hmo or insurance company can make (a ceiling, if you will) to the satisfaction rate of its insured – the higher the satisfaction rate, the more % the hmo can have in profit. if the insurance company tries to screw its customers by giving bad service, then their satisfaction rate will go down and their % of max profit will likewise go down. this will reward hmos and insurance companies by doing right by their own customers – which is how it should work regardless.
the author of this article is so far up the insurance company and hmo’s xxxx that he’s coming out their nose. the easiest way to correct the author’s errors is to simply tell the reader that we should do the exact OPPOSITE of what is written here. oh well – if obama gets his way, this article will be moot soon enough, since hmos and insurance companies are going to soon be out of business.

fishy@whitehouse.gov
sound of reason