Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

LATE MAIL BALLOT COUNTING RIPE FOR FRAUD

October 19, 2021

What if you were playing cards in a casino and the rules were you not only had to show the dealer your hand, but allow the dealer to fish through multiple decks to create his winning hand?

Elections have deadlines and force states to certify Electors, even when serious questions are being asked, and ignored by the courts.

Wouldn’t it be more prudent to have rules that prevented suspicion of ballot fraud, than have to challenge an election later?

SUMMARY OF ARIZONA AUDIT:

The Arizona Audit was conducted by several serious engineering specialists. The result? The handling of ballots was so careless that the election results were unreliable at best; at worst, fraudulent. 17,000 EVB ballot envelope images were duplicates. A suspiciously large percentage of the duplicates occurred in the days after Election Night. Were the envelopes duplicated just so the ballot count would match? 20,344 votes came from voters who had moved out of Arizona prior to the election, and should not have been able to receive ballots at all . . . 10,342 voters voted in multiple counties. 9,041 voted more than once. 3,282 were voters from outside Maricopa County . . . Maricopa County’s Board of Supervisors resisted subpoenas, which are still under court and now Attorneys General Order to produce . . . the voting machine and the ballot paper contractor also refused to cooperate.

In addition, over 10,000 envelopes had signatures that were impossible to verify with voter registration records (57,000 mail ballots had serious legal issues). This, plus the unconstitutional unequal ID standards and ‘special laws’[1] for mailed absentee ballot applications, is cause for an immediate Injunction against mailed ballot applications; which should only be processed through the Secretary of State Internet Portal, or in person, with state legislated required ID’s.

May I remind you that late counting of Arizona mail ballots resulted in Trump’s 66% in-person votes to Biden’s 32% flipped by 0.4%, less than 10,500 votes.

Recommendation:  1) The 2018 Absent Ballot statute be repealed. 2) All absentee ballot applications made through the Secretary of State Portal, or in person, so there isn’t two separate and unequal ID requirements. 3) Mail Ballot counts must be made as they arrive, and completed 24 hours after Election Night.

As I mentioned in my previous email, the new absent ballot rules are unconstitutional. The identification of non-citizens voting is a serious constitutional disenfranchisement issue, but Sanctuary City mandates complicate addressing it.

Michigan’s Gov. Whitmer vetoed attempts to correct the election rules abused in the 2020 election. However, if legislated revisions focus on clear constitutional issues, and a second attack is engaged in the NM Supreme Court, the legislation could succeed.

*   *   *

On Sunday, Fox News Chris Wallace grilled Rep. Steve Scalise about Donald Trump saying the election was stolen. It was embarrassing, almost biblical, Wallace trying to get Scalise to ‘deny Trump three times.’[2]

Rep. Scalise pointed out that fraud issues were not present when states counted mail absentee ballots as they arrived; the reports of fraud were rampant, however, in states that delayed counting until after the Election Night in-person and early votes were reported. This is an important issue, as it opens the door wide open for fraud.

Similarly, the Arizona Audit “discovered 263,139 ballot images on the election system that are corrupt and unreadable TIFF format images,” or missing entirely.

21,273 ballot images are entirely missing from the forensics images of the election equipment. This means that there are electronic votes recorded, but no actual ballot images that correspond to the votes. This makes it impossible to fully validate the results or confirm that the Election Management System (EMS) was not tampered with.[3]

So, compared to very few issues with early and in-person voting, and multi-ID Internet and in-person requests for absentee ballots, the continuation of the 2018 Absent Voter mail ballot system is untenable.

Thank you for your attention in this matter,

Leonard A. Daneman

Paralegal, Retired


[1] NM Const Art IV, Sec. 24. Local and special laws. “The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following cases: . . . the opening or conducting of any election or designating the place of voting;

[2] Chris Wallace for the third and “last time” probes Rep. Scalise at 4:10  https://crooksandliars.com/2021/10/chris-wallace-repeatedly-grills-steve

[3] Maricopa County Forensic Election Audit, Ch III, pgs 70, 73

HOW THE NEW ‘ABSENT VOTER’ LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

October 10, 2021

To:  All New Mexico Republican House Representatives

Re:  NMSA (1978) ABSENT VOTER ACT Article 6, Sec 1-6-1. AS AMENDED 2018

PREFACE

This memorandum targets one specific statute in order to undo uncertainty and any need for audits of critical elections.

The Absent Voter Act of 2018 is unconstitutional if it opens the door, even a crack, to unverified voters, delayed counting of mail ballots, ballots of uncertain origin, and ballots with chain-of-custody and adjudication issues.

The vote is a franchise limited to citizens, at least 18-years old, regardless of race, religion, or sex. In addition, having two separate standards for verifying voter qualification, one for mail and one for in-person, is an unequal application of law.

If voters are registered who are deceased, non-residents, non-citizens, or of otherwise unverifiable identity, then lawfully qualified voters have their votes diluted, if not completely disenfranchised:

Establishing the principle of “one person, one vote,” the Court stated that “the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377, 380 U.S. 533, 568 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 379–81 (1963); Baker, 369 U.S. at 228–29. 3 Gray, 372 U.S. at 381. 4 Id. at 380; see also Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555 (“[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.”); as cited from http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/387-396_Online.pdf

On its face, the Absent Voter Act is in violation of NM Const Art IV, Sec. 24.

Local and special laws. “The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following cases: . . . the opening or conducting of any election or designating the place of voting;

Any peripheral consideration of ‘making voting easier,’ or claims of protecting the health and welfare of citizens from exposure to COVID are meaningless and inapplicable. They cannot supersede the constitutional qualifications for the vote.

Finally, due to ‘lack of standing’ and the ‘Doctrine of Laches,’ election fraud cannot be cured after-the-fact; it must be prevented through assurance of legally qualified voters.

Question: Is the 2018 NM Absent Voter Act Unconstitutional?

Answer:  Because of the 2018 legislation (cited supra), many Absentee Ballots are of a lower, if not unacceptable standard of validity compared to the ‘in person’ vote. Therefore, the Absent Voter Act mail ballots are unconstitutional as they can disenfranchise ‘in person’ voters, or voters who applied for absentee ballots directly from the Secretary of State’s office. The Absent Voter Act has serious 14th Amendment ‘equal protection’ issues, and may be in direct violation of New Mexico’s constitutional ban on ‘special laws’ in elections.  

Explanation:  Starting with the ‘no excuse’ absentee ballot, certain factions have been working through legislation to make voting ‘easier.’ The result has been the creation of an inferior ballot of a second, unequal set of standards that potentially disenfranchises the ‘in person’ and ID’d registered voter. Several audits and thousands of affidavits indicate the Absent Voter ballot has been abused to manipulate election outcomes.

Fraud Must be Avoided Preemptively Because Post-Election Remedies Extend Beyond Mandated Time Limits for Certification

Congress has known for over a decade, through expert testimony, that computerized voting is vulnerable to fraud.[1] The problem with a voting system complicated by mail ballots is that discovery of fraud cannot be corrected within the narrow window of constitutionally required certification by the states.[2] We first experienced this issue in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ordering Florida to stop analyzing ‘hanging chads’ and certify the election as required by the Florida constitution. In the case of the 2020 election, the November 3rd election had deadlines for state certification, and then the Electoral College in the first week of January.

There is evidence that the Chinese CCP interfered with the 2020 Election through Dominion Voting Systems.[3] This was an Act of War, so much so that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, panicked, calling a general in China on January 8th, two days after agents provocateurs[4] attacked the U.S. Capitol in order to disrupt six states from filing Title 3 Section 15 Objections to Biden’s electors.

So, making elections even more complex, or federalized, is not the solution. Limiting unconstitutional Mail Ballots so elections can be quickly counted and certified is the only way to reestablish confidence of citizens that their votes were not disenfranchised.

NEW MEXICO EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE:  While the Secretary of State portal requires four data points that automatically validates voter registration, the mass-mailed applications from the non-profit ‘The Center for Voter Information’ rely only on a name and address that must be tediously hand-verified by the county clerk.

It is not inconceivable, that the doubling of Absentee Ballots, and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the Zuckerberg non-profit to solicit mail applications, overwhelmed the county clerks making their ability to verify a registered citizen voter impossible. (See Exhibits 1 and 2)

The omission of provisions to block non-citizens or unverified voters disenfranchises lawful citizen voters, violating the New Mexico Constitution[5] and the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment Rights of New Mexico citizens. Ballots from invalid voters or only verified by signature match cancel out lawful votes.

Under the U.S. Constitution, a citizen is identified having the right to vote, and disenfranchisement based on age, sex, and race forbidden. Without proper ID and voter registration requirements, citizens are being disenfranchised unconstitutionally.

The mailed application (see Exhibit 2) is not only unable to sufficiently validate registered voters, but is an unconstitutional application of two disparate, unequal legislated rules. It constitutes an unconstitutional ‘special law’ creating inclusion of a conflicting, illegal class of voter.[6]

In addition, days of late counting massive quantities of absentee ballots enable cheating on a scale that can control the outcome of any election. On Election Night the ‘in person’ votes are known, giving unscrupulous election workers advance knowledge how many mail ballots are needed to flip the election outcome. If this gaping hole in voting security is not closed by limiting the Absent Voter mail ballot, no election outcome will be trusted.[7]

This is what happened in Georgia, 2020. Mark Zuckerberg’s $400,000,000 not only funded ‘The Center for Voter Information’ mass-mailing of absent voter applications, but Stacy Abram’s ‘Happy Faces,’ the preferred temp agency where vote tabulation workers were trained and hired.[8] 

SUPREMACY CLAUSE: Under the 26th Amendment, Amendment XXVI, Section 1. “The right of citizens of the United States, whoare 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.” [emphasis added] [9]

Establishing the principle of “one person, one vote,” the Court stated that “the Constitution visualizes no preferred class of voters but equality among those who meet the basic qualifications.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377, 380 U.S. 533, 568 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 379–81 (1963); Baker, 369 U.S. at 228–29. 3 Gray, 372 U.S. at 381. 4 Id. at 380; see also Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555 (“[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.”); as cited from http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/387-396_Online.pdf

There are several amendments to the constitution that protect citizens from being disenfranchised by the states, but they all have a common factor which is the vote is a qualified right of a state’s ‘citizens.’ However, over a dozen states issue driver’s licenses to non-citizens who are not supposed to use the ID for voter registration, but there is no regulatory action enforcing that rule.

Under the Supremacy Clause, any state statute that furthers disenfranchisement of citizens is unconstitutional.

According to the New Mexico Secretary of State:

If you are registering for the first time in New Mexico, and you submit the registration form by mail, then you must submit with the form a copy of (1) a current and valid photo identification; or (2) a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, student identification card or other government document, including identification issued by an Indian nation, tribe or pueblo that shows your name and current address. If you do not submit one of these forms of identification with your mailed-in, first time registration, then you would be required to present one of the forms of identification when voting in person or absentee.

These rules actually conflict with a citizen’s voting rights; in that a utility bill or paycheck does not validate the registrant is a U.S. citizen. In addition, neither is a New Mexico driver’s license proof of citizenship.[10] In fact, a previous NM Secretary of State admitted that over 80,000 driver’s licenses were issued to non-citizens.[11]

Conclusion: 

The ‘Application for Absent Voter Mail Ballot’ mass-mailed by ‘The Center for Voter Information’ is insufficient to reliably validate a registered voter. This is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause (US Const 14th Amendment Sec. 1).

It also violates the New Mexican Constitution by creating a ‘special law.’

In the past, absentee ballot requests were for specific ‘excused’ circumstances, persons overseas, and the military. If you recall, some factions intentionally delayed military ballots in order to disenfranchise soldiers. [12]

Now, the Absent Voter Act of 2018 legalizes ‘ballot harvesting’ which has been observed being abused in various criminal arrests and surveillance camera recordings of Georgia ‘drop boxes.’[13] See also recent arrests of persons voting multiple ballots, and now more legislation presented to eliminate signature verification.[14] States have responded, limiting use of non-governmental drop boxes and verifying ‘chain-of-custody’ by requiring mail ballots to only be handled by a verified witness and election officials.[15]

Action Required:

The Absent Voter Act of 2018 must be challenged as-soon-as-possible in court, and in upcoming legislative sessions. Veracity and reliability of future elections depends on Absentee Ballot allocation limited to specific and relatively rare circumstances. While there will be massive resistance, Real ID Act standards must be adopted for driver’s licenses to prevent non-citizens from registering to vote.

Limiting excessive use of Absent Voter ballots will facilitate rapid tabulation of the vote, minimizing the temptation and opportunity to fraudulently manipulate the vote.   

This is a first step, as there are also legitimate concerns how voting tabulation scanners and computers have been compromised through ‘tweaking,’ access through thumb drives, and even WIFI access. The Wisconsin Audit of October, 2021 is 168-pages.[16] The Arizona Audit took months and is now in their State Attorneys General Office for investigation of criminal activity by members of the Maricopa Board of Supervisors, and Dominion Voting Systems.

Therefore, a direct approach to wind back the rush to Mail Ballots is prudent and lawful.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Summary of Mail Ballots in 2020:  There was a disturbing trend in a dozen states’ election results. (See Exhibit 5) On Election Day, when ‘in-person’ votes showed Trump leading by huge margins, days of counting ‘mail absentee’ ballots resulted in single digit to fraction of a percent victories for Biden.

One can conclude that the increase in mail ballots was due to COVID-19. But legislation to allow non-governmental solicitation of absentee mail ballots began soon after the 2016 election. The New Mexico Absent Voter Act (2018) permits ‘non-governmental people or groups’ (see Exhibit 1) to solicit and collect absentee ballots.

I, personally, received an ‘Application for Absent Voter Ballot’ addressed to a woman who may have lived at my address over ten years ago. The application required no ID; validation of voter registration only to be done by hand by the county clerk. In contrast, if she had requested a mail ballot through the Secretary of State’s portal, ID is absolutely required and voter registration is automatically validated. (See Exhibits 2 and 3)

Was the state prepared for a flood of unsolicited applications for absentee ballots coming in the mail? With only a name, address, and signature, could the county clerks validate voter registration? Four validation points, including a state ID# and social security confirmation are required when applications are made through the Secretary of State portal; that allows a computer to validate registration while the unsolicited applications can’t be reliably validated.

In addition, current ID requirements do not prevent non-citizens from voting.

Finally, if this unconstitutional disparity in validation points is not addressed in rapidly approaching legislative sessions, or in court, will the 2022 midterms also be unduly influenced with inadequately vetted voters?

Exhibit 5 shows nine states had Trump winning with 2X to 3X the ‘in-person’ votes compared to Biden’s. Of those states, five ‘flipped’ to Biden due to absentee mail ballots.

Pennsylvania was the most extreme example. Trump had 2X Biden’s votes on Election Day, Trump’s mail ballot percentage consistent with the 2016 and 2018 elections (about 1 in 5 votes). It took days, but Biden pulled ahead by 1.2% with mail ballots exceeding his in-person votes by 1.4X, seven times the levels in the two previous elections. (See Exhibit 4, graphics by the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper.)

In Arizona, a massive audit was done (subpoenaed data is still being withheld by Maricopa County) with critical issues noted concerning processing mail ballots. 17,000 mail ballot envelope images were duplicates whose associated ballots shouldn’t have been counted at all. Same with 1,700 ballots whose envelopes had no signatures. The number of distributed mail ballots was exceeded by returned mail ballots by 9,000. 5,000 voters voted in multiple counties (identity determined by First, Last, MI, and Birth Year). Biden won Arizona by 10,427 votes . . . 17,000 votes shouldn’t have been counted at all, and a total of 32,700 mail ballots were identified as invalid under Georgia law.

The Georgia Senate Runoff also had unusual late ballot counting. At midnight, with 88% of all precincts reporting, both Republicans were ahead by 4%. However, sometime after 2AM, the Democrats had pulled ahead to win by about 2%. Some basic math reveals that to gain 6%, the Democrats had to win 75% of the votes in the remaining precincts. [Citations omitted. These numbers were from personal notes taken during from real-time election results.]


[1] Software programmer says US elections are rigged and that US Representatives tried to pay him to rig their election vote counts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnjFrMx-DR4 (Note: This is a copy of the original House Hearing video and of poor quality. Unfortunately, many videos and links on this topic tend to disappear down the ‘memory hole.’

[2] See, ‘lack of standing,’ and ‘laches.’

[3] “Andy Huang, who serves as Core Infrastructure Manager of Information Technology at Dominion Voting Systems, previously worked at Chinese government owned China Telecom, the report said. “Huang, who fulfills the critical technology role at Dominion, worked at the Chinese firm from 1998 to 2002,” the report noted.” https://www.worldtribune.com/china-connection-reports-say-dominion-parent-company-received-400m-from-ccp-linked-bank/

[4] As reported by War Correspondent Michael Yon from personal observations at the Capitol.

[5] NM Const. Bill of Rights Sec. 2. Rights and privileges. No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

[6] NM Const Art IV, Sec. 24. Local and special laws. “The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following cases: . . . the opening or conducting of any election or designating the place of voting;

[7] https://www.westernjournal.com/az-auditors-say-17000-duplicate-ballots-found-maricopa-county-1-5-times-biden-won/

[8] https://www.sgtreport.com/2021/06/breaking-evidence-presented-at-hearing-today-shows-stacey-abrams-ran-fulton-county-elections/

[9] NM Const Art II, Sec 8: The supreme right guaranteed by state constitution is the right of a citizen to vote at public elections. State ex rel. Walker v. Bridges1921-NMSC-04127 N.M. 169199 P. 370.

[10] See 18.19.5.12 NMAC B. 3.  a valid foreign passport with I-551 stamp; et seq

[11] “B. Fraud – Between the passage of the 2003 Amendments and August 2011, New Mexico issued over 80,000 driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. The provision of these licenses was not without controversy. Reports indicate that some of these driver’s licenses were obtained fraudulently by out-of-state residents.” Steven J. Escobar, Allowing Undocumented Immigrants to Obtain Driver’s Licenses in New Mexico: Revising, Not Abandoning, the System, 43 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 285 (2014), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol43/iss1/15

[12] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/12/justice-delayed-for-military-voters/

[13] https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/huge-development-georgia-democrats-got-caught-24-criminal-operatives-caught-video-stuffing-dropbox-19000-ballots-3-days-video/ [article updated, was 1900 ballots]

[14] https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/virginia-county-asks-governor-to-waive-absentee-ballot-witness-signature-requirements-ahead-of-governors-election_4037777.html?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-10-07-3&mktids=ba5bfe3b425c62af3bb2995c86b8e0dc&est=hGrZBVB%2BIDCohxaVUc8M%2BvpVDOxlC1ehq2SBYrSUSxtG1%2FFb9tl%2F4SMYpq3y

[15] “There’s a tremendous chain of custody issue that every voter should be concerned about,” said Illinois Representative Rodney Davis, the top Republican on the House Administration Committee. He has introduced federal legislation to prevent ballot harvesting. “The chain of custody that has to be taken into consideration because our ballot is so much more important — we have to understand how it gets to its final counting spot.” See also, Justice Alito, writing for the majority, noted that states have a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and that these policies work to prevent such fraud. “Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight,” the Court continued. “Fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.”

Equally important, the Court found that “[e]nsuring that every vote is cast freely, without intimidation or undue influence, is [a] valid and important state interest.” https://www.citizensjournal.us/u-s-supreme-court-rules-for-states-election-integrity-efforts/

[16] https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf


EXHIBIT 1

NEW MEXICO ABSENT VOTER

Chapter 6, Section 1-6-4.3 – Third party agents collecting applications for mailed ballots

A. A person or organization that is not part of a government agency and that collects applications for mailed ballots shall submit the applications to the appropriate office for filing within forty-eight hours of their completion or the next business day if the appropriate office is closed for that forty-eight-hour period.

Section 1-6-5 – Processing application; issuance of ballot

A. The county clerk shall mark each completed application for a mailed ballot with the date and time of receipt in the clerk’s office and enter the required information in the ballot register. The county clerk shall then determine if the applicant is a voter and if the voter is a uniformed-service voter or an overseas voter. If the applicant is a uniformed-service voter or overseas voter, the application shall be processed pursuant to the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act [1-6B-1 to 1-6B-17 NMSA 1978].B. If the applicant does not have a valid certificate of registration on file in the county, a mailed ballot shall not be issued and the county clerk shall mark the application “rejected”, file the application in a separate file from those accepted and notify the applicant in writing with an explanation why the application was rejected.

EXHIBIT 2

Unsolicited Application from ‘The Center for Voter Information’ https://law.justia.com/citations.html

EXHIBIT 3

Three ID’s Required to Validate Voter Registration https://law.justia.com/citations.html

Exhibit 4

EXHIBIT 5


Donald Trump’s First Amendment Rights Supersede Sec 230, or Facebook’s Terms of Service Contract

June 4, 2021

FriendsSee All Friends74 friendsMarc MuccinoDorthy NuzzoTobrknot TobfreeJack CashillLynn Randall FosterDon NeuenEd SunderlandSharon RondeauAssem Hijazi

Facebook © 2021What’s on your mind?Live VideoPhoto/VideoLife Event

Posts

FiltersManage PostsList ViewGrid ViewActive

Leonard Daneman

7m  · Shared with Your friends

Friends

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube share 85% of the social media market, Facebook a whopping 72% https://gs.statcounter.com/…/all/united-states-of-america

Facebook is such a convenient multi-platform media that over half of Americans get their news there (Forbes, Pew Research).

Therefore, banning Pres. Donald J. Trump from Facebook is a targeted violation of 1st Amendment Rights unprecedented in U.S. history.

Facebook claims that their right to block Trump content is legal, and controlled by terms of service. One issue Facebook claims is that Trump’s insistence that the 2020 Election was ‘stolen’ through ballot fraud provokes violence and insurrection. Yet, when evidence and testimony ballot fraud occurred, that content is blocked as well (ex. Michael Yon’s eyewitness testimony the January 6th ‘insurrection’ was not MAGA supporters, or Capital Police Captain Sund’s Letter to Nancy Pelosi were purged, or ‘edited’ out as False Information by Facebook ‘fact checkers’), it is more political than public interest.

Considering the statistics of Facebook’s market penetration and public reliance for information and news, the 1st Amendment supersedes Section 230 and Facebook’s Terms of Service. Facebook has to prove Donald Trump’s ‘speech’ has instigated insurrection and riots, creating a ‘clear and present danger, not just present evidence that may be unpopular, or result in controversy and lawsuits.

It has to be ‘untrue’ and libelous. See, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), and Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). So, when Facebook claims Donald Trump is promoting imminent violence (there is ZERO evidence Trump incited January 6th’s riot at the Capitol), or can be sued for slander (by accusing Pennsylvania of unconstitutional ballot rules, Georgia of abuse of Mail Ballot scanning, Michigan of Corrupted Dominion Machine results, etc.) . . . nor can Donald Trump be sued for claiming Arizona relied on invalid voter registrations, fraudulently and negligently, to flip the 2020 election.

Not one subject of these accusations has succeeded suing Donald Trump, while all of the lawsuits Trump and Trump supporters (and states) have had their cases blocked by the courts. This ‘blanket’ ban of Donald Trump from Facebook for two years, well past the 2022 election, is a distinct and irrefutable violation of his constitutional rights . . . and those 1st Amendment Rights overrule any statute or contract.

BREAK THE LAW FIRST IN ORDER TO BENEFIT FROM THE LAW, SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG

January 18, 2021

It is ironic, and underlines how ridiculous birthright citizenship is, that almost every citizenship at birth that relies solely on the Wong Kim Ark misinterpretation of ‘born in the United States . . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are children of illegal aliens. All other citizens at birth inherit U.S. citizenship from one or both parents; if the father by natural sanguinity, or if a U.S. citizen mother by statute removing the father’s nationality.

If someone has to BREAK THE LAW FIRST IN ORDER TO BENEFIT FROM THE LAW, SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG, and that was Wong Kim Ark.

Here is a law school professor who got it right, very clearly stated, and properly citing the Slaughter-House cases and Elk vs Wilkins:* John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law:

“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.” (See in the quote from Sen. Wade where he admits the Civil Rights Act’s ‘without allegiance to any foreign power’ settled the matter of which children born on U.S. soil were not granted citizenship.) New York Times UPDATED December 22, 2015 https://tinyurl.com/ydczevzt See also http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-eastman-04-hamdi/

However, the Wong Kim Ark majority opinion argued that the exceptions to ‘born in the United States’ citizenship were denied to ONLY three specific groups; and therefore the rest not exempt. That was faulty logic designed to achieve a predetermined outcome to the case. These judges wanted to change 108-years of jus sanguinis (inherited from father) legislated immigration and naturalization law into jus solis ‘place of birth.’

One example the court relied on was Native Americans born on U.S. soil, but allegiant to their sovereign tribal territories were exempt under the 14th Amendment from citizenship. That example, however, is not logical as ‘Native Americans not taxed’ were born to separate sovereignties and therefore not citizens. Even today, Native American lands operate under different laws and, like under the Torts Claims Act, determine if a U.S. citizen has jurisdiction to pursue any action against the tribe or a tribal member.

When the 14th Amendment was proposed and the ‘citizenship clause’ debated, one senator’s comment illustrates the confusion, even then, over what was the legal foundation for citizenship at birth:

“The ancient and indisputable citizenship rule of the British common law was the jus soli, under which a person’s nationality is determined by the place of his birth…. It is clear, of course, that the American colonies and the nation they ultimately established had accepted the precepts of the English common law, as part of the heritage from the mother country.” Cong. Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Sess. 1262 (1866) (Congressman Broomall)

Congressman Broomall was wrong. Why? First, even British law from 1351 to 1772 first recognized the rightful inheritance of leigance from the father, regardless of place of birth. This was an essential law during England’s colonial empire. Second, most states barred reliance on English ‘common law’ unless specifically codified. And, thirdly; the U.S. Constitution specified plenary power over Uniform Naturalization law to be the jurisdiction of Congress.

Wong Kim Ark cited U.S. naturalization statute from 1790 to 1855, but used its misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to overturn over a century of statute. (In our time, this misinterpretation of ‘citizenship at birth’ was used to unconstitutionally ‘amend’ Article II’s ‘eligibility clause,’ allowing the son of a British citizen, a non-immigrant alien, to run for president.)

There were competing opinions, and in the end the Senate approved the ‘citizenship clause’ determining that the ‘citizenship clause’ of the 1866 Civil Rights Act defined it correctly:

Cong Globe 39th Congress 2768, 2769 Pres. pro tem Senator Wade (OH)”In the first section of the proposition of the committee, the word “citizen” is used. That is a term about which there has been a good deal of uncertainty in our Government. The courts have stumbled on the subject, and even here, at this session, that question has been up and it is still regarded by some as doubtful. I regard it as settled by the civil rights bill, and, indeed, in my judgment, it was settled before. . . The Senator from Maine suggests to me, in an undertone, that persons may be born in the United States and yet not be citizens of the United States.”* Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303,100 U. S. 306. This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. (p. 111)

It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992. (p. 103)

Chinese Censorship Rules in Big Tech

January 18, 2021

Google is still designing search engine censorship for China, even after bad publicity for Dragonfly. And, the Chinese Communist Party censorship rules are expanding rapidly here in the United States. Search terms once active in Google (I won’t specify) are now ‘cleansed’ from Search Results. Rumble, a direct competitor to YouTube suddenly disappeared from Google Search once Google acquired the video streaming service. So . . . I ask you . . . how much is being censored? The Mainstream Media censored any mention of the Hunter Biden laptops, and, in fact, ‘debunked’ them as Russian propaganda for Trump. Now, the censorship is out in the open as ‘good policy’ to protect the public. https://theintercept.com/…/google-china-search-engine…/

This censorship is enough to trigger the 2018 Executive Order concerning foreign interference in the election. Let alone outright ballot fraud through unconstitutional rule changes, that permitted theft of voter registrations and illicit ballot counting.

Vice President Pence Must Choose Electors

January 3, 2021

According to the 12th Amendment, the “representation from each state having one vote” means according to its electoral votes, minus two; the ‘two’ are reserved for the Senate to select a Vice-President. The quorum requirement and precedent indicates this is the case. Not 50 votes, but a simple majority of 218, if a quorum of representatives are present to vote the number is less.

If Gorka was correct, the language would be ‘each state having one vote,’ the word ‘representation’ being surplusage. See also in the amendment how each state shall vote according to its ‘member or members,’ a few states having only one House representative.

There is precedent, and that is January 6th, 2005, when the Objection submitted by Sen Boxer and Rep Tubbs was voted on, each representative having one vote. See the Congressional Record of January 6, 2005, page H127.

There is another precedent when two panels of electors were submitted. That was 1961 when Vice President Nixon called Hawaii’s alternate electors counting towards the election of John Kennedy, the alternate electors submitted after a recount (which put Kennedy ahead by 115 votes). In this case, the Title 3 Objection was ignored and Nixon simply chose one panel of electors over the other.

In 2021, seven states have submitted alternate electors due to massive fraud and unconstitutional rules on mail ballots.

Of course, the Vice President must be eligible to the presidency according to Article II, and in this case Kamala Harris is NOT a natural born citizen. Her citizenship, born in the U.S. to two alien parents, did not qualify as a citizen at birth at the time of adoption of our constitution, but by operation of an unconstitutional supreme court decision in 1898 creating a new type of ‘citizen at birth. ‘That was the Wong Kim Ark case.

So, no law entitled Harris, or anyone born of alien parents to citizenship until 1898, the 1866 Civil Rights Act or 14th Amendment applying only to freed slaves, people born to a father who did not have ‘subjection to any foreign power.’ Citizenship at birth from a U.S. citizen mother only did not become law until 1952. As argued concerning Title 3’s codification of the 1887 Electoral Count Act, a statute, in particular a statute created by an unconstitutional decision by the court, does not ‘amend’ of ‘revise’ the constitution. Only an amendment to the constitution concerning ‘citizenship’ eligibility can do that . . . and children born of foreign fathers were denied the presidency for a very good and specific reason, as explained by John Jay, ‘to avoid foreign intrigues in the highest office.’

COVID-19 Drama — A Timeline of HCQ vs Remdesivir

July 27, 2020

Update October 14, 2021 — Nebraska AG approves out-patient ‘off label’ prescription of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. https://www.palmerfoundation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/20211014-NEBRASKA-HCQ-IVM.pdf

Update February, 2021 — NIH’s website contains many studies supporting HCQ Therapy. Hydroxychloroquine was lambasted by Fauci, and Pres. Trump ridiculed and shamed in the media for lacking ‘science’ in his support of HCQ Therapy. Meanwhile, Fauci and Azar (a former big pharm president and lobbyist) pushed for billions in vaccine research while shutting down our economy and society . . . while countries like India, which prescribe Hydroxychloroquine, have mortality rates for COVID 20X LESS than the United States and suffer no restrictions of their society and marketplaces. There are many studies buried in NIH records supporting HCQ, with or without Zinc and AZT. One observes a suppression of ‘viral shedding,’ meaning those infected, treated with HCQ, do not infect others. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/

Update October 5, 2020 1700 COVID patients cured with Hydroxychloroquine. One hospitalization . . . ZERO mortalites . . . doctor claims 75%-80% of the 200,000 dead could have been saved if HCQ wasn’t banned in favor of an ‘unnecessary’ vaccine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3QfTnIazU

Update August 25, 2020 — Now, three states lift Hydroxychloroquine ban. Texas lifted the ban in May, Ohio in July, and now Minnesota in August. https://kstp.com/minnesota-news/walz-lifts-prescription-restrictions-for-hydroxychloroquine-august-18-2020/5831835/

Update August 23, 2020 — Senators challenge FDA. https://aapsonline.org/senators-demand-answers-on-hydroxychloroquine-from-the-fda/

Update August 20, 2020 — Second governor removes block on Hydroxychloroquine. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/19/nolte-minnesotas-democrat-governor-quietly-rescinds-hydroxychloroquine-ban/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2la1UsyEPPTfOLmF-u6gQ0PQAPHDyUFw3zXtbWf1em6wJIjEjWTLvPvGM

Update August 8, 2020 — Democratic New York City Councilman Paul Vallone credits hydroxychloroquine with saving his life as he fought against the lethal respiratory disease. Vallone, who represents Queens, told the New York Post that HCQ “basically saved me.” https://nypost.com/2020/08/08/nyc-councilman-credits-hydroxychloroquine-for-covid-19-recovery/

Update August 4, 2020 — The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons vs. Federal Food and Drug Administration, CV-002493, was filed in a federal district court to force the FDA to reverse their removal of Emergency Use Authorization (use requested by Pres. Trump) of Hydroxychloroquine.

On Friday, July 31, 2020, the AAPS filed a Motion to Expedite Hearing or Ruling to schedule a hearing with oral arguments for the Injunction against the FDA. Here is the Motion: https://aapsonline.org/judicial/aaps-v-fda-hcq-7-30-2020.pd

Here is an open letter from the doctors involved in the Henry Ford study of clinical treatment records, explaining how real world data is as valuable scientifically as clinical trials. Of course, there is a Real World Data source of Hydroxychloroquine use based on 1.3 billion people, and that is HCQ use in India that over six months has a mortality rate 20X less than the U.S. where HCQ use is banned. https://www.wxyz.com/news/coronavirus/henry-ford-docs-pen-open-letter-on-hydroxychloroquine-study?fbclid=IwAR3Ddt3MoQQwike7qX1-FYae8gT3Fq6w71X3ZL1FS8yq3UxCQ1gVeAukp6Q

Dr. Simone Gold of America’s Frontline Doctors (fired, and her social sites removed from the Internet) speaks on The Blaze. https://www.facebook.com/christaann99/videos/10158373798967464/

Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas taking Hydroxychloroquine https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200731/gohmert-to-take-hydroxychloroquine-for-coronavirus

* * *

The first cases of COVID-19 came from Wuhan, China in January, 2020. Dr. Didier Raoult, a renowned French microbiologist, began antiviral trials of Hydroxychloroquine in patients March 6, 2020 which concluded, “hydroxychloroquine is efficient in clearing viral nasopharyngeal carriage of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients in only three to six days, in most patients.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300996

In the United States, primary physicians were prescribing Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and recommended early use to stop spread of the virus (shedding) in days, at the most thirty-seven days.

March 21, 2020 — “Mr. Trump carelessly broadcast enthusiasm for the drug March 21, declaring that hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin “have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.” He suggested they be put in use “immediately,” and the Food and Drug Administration authorized emergency use against covid-19.” http://tiny.cc/8twlsz

March 21, 2020 — State boards of pharmacy begin restrictions on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Here is a list of each state’s updated policy. One concern was hoarding of HCQ putting lupus and arthritis patients at risk, but the U.S. had stockpiled millions of doses, and the therapeutic dose is for only one week. http://tiny.cc/ntwlsz

March 30, 2020 — FDA approves off-label use (emergency use authorization) of Hydroxychloroquine. Out-Patient success of use reported by Doctors Didier Raoult (microbiologist/virologist) and Zelenko. Private physicians note rapid elimination of the virus in out-patient quarantine. http://tiny.cc/ttwlsz

March 31, 2020 — The American Spectator reports on the efficacy of HCQ and reprinted excerpts from Dr. Didier Rauolt’s report on his success with the drug, and the entire March 23, 2020 letter from Dr. Zelenko that informed President Trump of his ‘anecdotal’ success on hundreds of patients. https://spectator.org/the-20-solution-to-coronavirus-anecdotal-evidence-is-a-life-saver/

June 4, 2020 — The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a 501(c)(6) out of Phoenix, AZ, sues the FDA for restricting prescription of HCQ. http://tiny.cc/3uwlsz

June 15, 2020 — FDA revokes emergency off-label use of Hydroxychloroquine. https://www.fda.gov/media/138945/download

June 16, 2020 — New York Times reports on government in-fighting over millions of hydroxychloroquine tablets put into stockpile. But, contradicting the president’s trade advisor Peter Navarro, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar (an attorney and former president of Eli Lilly) revokes use of HCQ favoring a new drug, Remdesivir. (Remdesivir has been determined ineffective on the viral diseases it was designed for and has severe liver inflammation issues, but approved for emergency use for COVID-19. https://www.gilead.com/purpose/advancing-global-health/covid-19/about-remdesivir See also Wikipedia cited report.)
While HCQ was better known, has fewer side-effects, and costs about $20 a dose for out-patients, Remdesivir is untested and a therapeutic course costs $2,340/patient. Being intravenous, it requires expensive hospital care (an additional $13,000 from Medicare.)
“This is a Deep State blindside by bureaucrats who hate the administration they work for more than they’re concerned about saving American lives,” Peter Navarro, Mr. Trump’s trade adviser, who helped distribute 19 million hydroxychloroquine pills, fumed in an interview Monday night. Mr. Navarro insisted that the F.D.A. would have “blood on its hands” if any of those studies showed hydroxychloroquine was effective.
The article mentions Dr. Didier Raoult, a world-renowned virologist, and Dr. Zelenko, who have been reporting success prescribing hydroxychloroquine. http://tiny.cc/xuwlsz See also https://spectator.org/the-20-solution-to-coronavirus-anecdotal-evidence-is-a-life-saver/

July 6, 2020 — This is one of many press releases on the Henry Ford Health system of in-hospital clinical trials required by the FDA for use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. Was Peter Navarro right after all? http://tiny.cc/ruwlsz

July 31,2020 — Dr. Fauci appeared before congress, and while he was a cheerleader for an effective vaccine by the end of the year (without guaranteeing safety due to rushed testing), he lambasted the Henry Ford Health System’s peer-reviewed study of over 2500 patients.

Fauci complained the study was flawed because patients received steroids and other treatment, which wasn’t true. The study only counted lower death rates in patients receiving only hydroxychloroquine. The study specified that, “13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died, compared to 26.4% not treated with the malaria drug.” [emphasis added]

Dr. Fauci complained that, “The Henry Ford Hospital study that was published was a non-controlled, retrospective cohort study that was confounded by a number of issues including the fact that many people who received hydroxychloroquine were also receiving cortical steroids, which we know from another study gives a clear benefit in reducing deaths with advanced disease. So that study is a flawed study.” Dr. Marcus Zervos, division head of Infectious Disease for the health system, who co-authored the study, said the findings were highly analyzed and peer-reviewed.

mlive.com

https://tinyurl.com/y2bd29bx

Conclusion:

The U.S. economy is still suffering from quarantine and now faces a second bill on bailouts and unemployment compensation. And, yet, Hydroxychloroquine is still denied to patients when clinical trials prove it can stop viral spread in mere days (See Dr. Zelenko 5-day treatment) and prevent hospitalization. Instead, billions have been allocated for Remdesivir and as yet unproven vaccines.

Afterthought:

I searched on-line for nations that approve Hydroxychloroquine for out-patient prescriptions. India permits primary physicians (does not limit to specialists) to prescribe HCQ for early treatment and its mortality rate is 0.002%. That is 20X better than 0.04% in the U.S. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

However, the infection map shows greater transmission rates in high-population urban areas; and, India is only 30% urban compared to 80% in the United States. Adjusting to urban areas only, India still has a mortality rate 7X less than the U.S. The lawsuit filed against the FDA cites a 10X lower mortality rate for all nations approving HCQ.

With 1.3 billion people, compared to 330 million in the U.S., India provides a real-world clinical trial of substantial statistical value.

Question:

Why is a $20 dose of a proven drug, Hydroxychloroquine, still barred from efficacious early treatment in favor of BILLIONS of DOLLARS spent on an unproven antiviral (Remdevisir) and rushed, untested vaccines that won’t be available until, perhaps, too late! Too late for many, already.

Many of the links are from conservative or religious news sites, however this situation is also covered by Reuters, The American Spectator, and the New York Times. However, the media is supporting Dr. Fauci’s position and continuing to ridicule President Trump which is acerbating ad extending the COVID-19 Pandemic into a catastrophic impact on our economy and 2020 national elections.

Dr. Zelenko’s 100% success with early prescription to any patient with breathing issues and testing positive for the virus moved him to encourage the president to distribute HCQ nationwide to end the epidemic as soon as possible. Dr. Fauci and the FDA have blocked this.

Leonard A. Daneman, Paralegal, Ret.

Full URL’s

March 21 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-lessons-from-trumps-reckless-recommendation-of-hydroxychloroquine/2020/04/23/4626c4ce-84bc-11ea-ae26-989cfce1c7c7_story.html

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-04/board-of-pharmacy-covid-19-prescribing.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2f8mJ5E1QPtxaiZc-c0WOPqnjFHZecIvc_iPveKguU-E1GOWuzuw1gYcc

March 30 https://khn.org/morning-breakout/fda-approves-emergency-use-of-malaria-drug-trump-touted-despite-scant-evidence-that-it-works/?fbclid=IwAR0phH_Vg2nuH0hlt7nZQsXixUgIsGb7vbHOs5NrUYqD-yk747kUdqyy8DI

June 4 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-hydroxychloroq/u-s-doctors-group-sues-fda-for-limiting-access-to-drug-touted-by-trump-for-covid-19-idUSKBN23B340#:~:text=2%20months%20ago-,U.S.%20doctors%20group%20sues%20FDA%20for%20limiting%20access%20to,by%20Trump%20for%20COVID%2D19&text=That%20harms%20the%20rights%20of,federal%20district%20court%20on%20Tuesday.

June 16 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/us/politics/trump-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus.html?fbclid=IwAR0utOIERdzgvP9QcLsK393lgBKi0aGu_8GK_fDUJ_q7zn6YxrC7I9yhmsw

July 6 https://khn.org/morning-breakout/study-finds-positive-results-for-hydroxychloroquine/?fbclid=IwAR3j0at2E6CtgN3cIzKGfw2ssblrOcD9kTpUd08-zX3Ohd9KFL-MPRVblDI

July 31 https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/07/dr-fauci-calls-michigan-hospitals-hydroxychloroquine-study-flawed.html

Articles on Internet Vote Fraud

July 17, 2018

Secretaries of State in key markets had a computer patch installed that allowed ‘real-time’ tabulation from disparate voting machines. Why? WHY! Answer: So they could determine where and how many Romney votes needed deletion.

Obama had 9 million less votes than in 2008. Yet, turnout was up both in early voting and at the polls. Why then were Romney’s numbers 3 million LESS than McCain’s back in 2008 when there was NO HOT BUTTON?

Dismiss my theory, but it is pure deduction based on an indelible fact about the tabulation patch. And if true, it means the election process is permanently corrupted . . . over.

Why file fraudulent voter registrations and work to send in bogus absentee ballots when all you have to do is lose, ‘in vivo machina,’ just enough of your opponents votes.

The theory can be tested. The Ohio machines (and similar setups) must be analyzed to see if the tabulations can be altered, i.e., votes deleted.

In lieu of paper ballots, we need two counts: One at the door taken mechanically by two poll workers, and the other from the machine tabulation tallies. They must match up within a margin of error.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233316/Judge_throws_out_Ohio_lawsuit_over_software_on_vote_tabulation_machines

For a detailed record of the Complaint and Expert Opinion Affidavit describing the ‘patch’ by a computer engineer, see http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/Fitrakis.v.Husted.1.php

See also http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/02/soros-vote-counters
Up-date Jan 8, 2013 — There was the story of the disgraced Ohio Dem politician, bragging about teaching people how to defraud the vote through gas bills and fake ID. Here is the latest — http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund
Jerome Corsi’s upcoming book will describe vote fraud in the 2012 election. My theory, and ‘napkin/post-it’ calculations showed that by picking key districts, powerful poll officials, especially in Ohio (where Obama’s 2008 election organization never shut its doors) could have undermined the Romney vote and vote count, changing the election.
Up-date Nov 27: Two articles that are a must read. http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/fbi-asked-to-probe-obama-vote-changing-machines/ and http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/the-big-list-of-vote-fraud-reports/

* * * http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/how-to-stop-an-ineligible-president/ * * *

Up-date Nov 16, 2012: Salon.com Nov. 5, 2012. http://www.salon.com/2012/11/05/ohio_republicans_sneak_risky_software_onto_voting_machines/

Must SEE! http://conservativevideos.com/2012/11/programmer-under-oath-admits-computers-rig-elections/

This article concludes that even ‘de minimus’ (minute) changes to the tabulation software can affect the entire system. Who benefitted? Was it used to control the outcome of the critical Ohio vote? See the Boxer/Tubb Jones Title 3 Sec 15 challenge to the 2000 Ohio tabulation at the end of Section II.

Justice Horace Gray–Judge? Or Legislator

February 16, 2018

Author’s Note:  It is difficult to condense the error of Justice Horace Gray onto one page. Gray took great liberties with the Osborne case and English common law in order to create a new ‘citizenship at birth.’

HORACE GRAY IN WONG KIM ARK – JUDGE? OR LEGISLATOR

Following is an examination of one Supreme Court precedent cited in the Wong Kim Ark case, which Justice Gray proceeds to ignore. The colored text matches commentary with the actual text from Wong Kim Ark.

Justice Gray decided to expand the principle of ‘jus soli’ to give Ark citizenship at birth, although that citizenship was barred by statute and treaty. He did this by paraphrasing the Osborne case and using English common law to conflate ‘native born’ with ‘citizenship at birth,’ while 14th Amendment citizenship for those ‘born in the United States’ was post nati. Natural born citizenship remained, as it had since 1790, dependent first on U.S. citizen parents, not place of birth.

Here is Gray discussing ‘citizenship at birth’ deciding while ‘born in the United States’ as defined in the 1866 Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment ‘citizenship clauses’ were constitutional, the constitution “conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth.” Gray relies on Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 827 to conflate ‘native’ birth with citizenship, which was nowhere in statute;

[N]o act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship. Wong Kim Ark, (p704)

But, Gray is paraphrasing Osborn, assuming ‘native-born’ as synonymous with ‘natural born citizen.’ This is a leap, relying solely on selected English common law as precedent. So, Justice Gray was fabricating a gap in the law for the judiciary to enter in creating ‘citizenship at birth’ for children born of all aliens, not just the freed slaves of African descent. He justified this, subtly criticizing the exclusion of naturalization to ‘non-whites,’ invoking 1870 statute extending naturalization to those of African descent but still denying naturalization of Chinese.[1]

The power, granted to Congress by the Constitution, “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization” was long ago adjudged by this court to be vested exclusively in Congress. Chirac v. Chirac (1817), 2 Wheat. 259. For many years after the establishment of the original Constitution, and until two years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress never authorized the naturalization of any but “free white persons.” Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3, and January 29, 1795, c. 20; 1 Stat. 103, 414; April 14, 1802, c. 28, and March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; March 22, 1816, c. 32; 3 Stat. 258; May 26, 1824, c. 186, and May 24, 1828, c. 116; 4 Stat. 69, 310.

While Gray relied on English common law as precedent, he cited U.S. law that was contrary to his opinion and ignored it. The 39th Congress in debate and statute, and stare decisis five-years previously in Elk vs. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the issue of ‘born or naturalized’ was recognized as settled law, already defined:

It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”

Gray ignores “and not subject to any foreign power” which had nothing to do with whether the child was a ‘free white,’ or ‘non-white.’ It is essential to mention here that Congress decided that the ‘citizenship clause’ of the 14th Amendment was completely in agreement and sourced from that same clause in the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Conclusion: Congressional record, statute, and constitutional amendment created a post nati ‘jus soli’ citizenship at birth because the standard of jus sanguinis was impossible for children of freed slaves. However, ALL OTHER CHILDREN HAD PARENTS OF ‘FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE.’ So, in order to grant Wong Kim Ark citizenship, Horace Gray acted not as a judge applying law and stare decisis, but as a rogue legislator from the bench.

[1] By the treaty between the United States and China, made July 28, 1868, and promulgated February 5, 1870, it was provided that nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States. 16 Stat. 740. By the act of July 14, 1870, c. 254, § 7, for the first time, the naturalization laws were “extended to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.” 16 Stat. 256. This extension, as embodied in the Revised Statutes, took the form of providing that those laws should “apply to aliens [being free white persons, and to aliens] of African nativity and to persons of African descent;” and it was amended by the act of February[p702] 18, 1875, c. 80, by inserting the words above printed in brackets. Rev.Stat. (2d ed.) § 2169; 18 Stat. 318. Those statutes were held, by the Circuit Court of the United States in California, not to embrace Chinese aliens. In re Ah Yup (1878), 5 Sawyer 155. And by the act of May 6, 1882, c. 126, § 14, it was expressly enacted that “hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship.” 22 Stat. 61. In Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), above cited, this court said: Chinese persons not born in this country have never been recognized as citizens of the United States, nor authorized to become such under the naturalization laws. Wong Kim Ark (p704)

 

Copy and Send this to Your Congressmen

February 14, 2018

Citizenship at Birth, or Organized Invasion

citing blackstone

A Few Words About ‘Citizenship at Birth’

The feudal concept of allegiance to a Lord or King by birthplace is from medieval times when wealth was solely in the hands of royalty and the church. The peasant class, or ‘villeins;’ owed complete subjection to the landowner in exchange for protection.

The U.S. Supreme Court changed citizenship law in 1898 relying on old English law, but England had made statutory departures from the feudal concept of allegiance from ‘place of birth’ as far back as 1351. (25 Edw. 3, stat. 2, et seq.) The legal tenet of natural born subjects by sanguinity, through father and mother, was essential to the English Empire while pursuing foreign commerce and colonialism.

The ‘Law of Nations’ by Vattel, a legal authority on Nationality law, noted that a country could only replenish itself with children of its own citizens (§ 212). Both the British Nationality Act of 1772 and our First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 determined citizenship of a child followed that of the father, not place of birth. Under both British and U.S. law, a child born on U.S. soil to a British subject was not a U.S. citizen, but British.

In fact, the only reason the ‘jus soli’ was invoked seventy-six years later in the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment was because freed slaves had no nationality to confer by blood (sanguinity). As property they were determined to be stateless, non-citizens. Citizenship was granted ‘post nati’ because they were ‘born in the United States’ with no ‘foreign subjection,’ and were allegiant to the Union.

However, thirty-years after the ‘born in the United States’ citizenship clause became part of the Reconstruction Acts and our constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark (1898) decided to abrogate existing treaty with China (The Burlingame Treaty) and statute (Exclusionary Acts, Cooley Act) in order to create a new naturalization law; citizenship at birth to children of alien parents.

In the Wong Kim Ark case (a Chinese cook in his twenties) the court was catering to the Chinese Six Companies, wealthy from the California Gold Rush and commerce, whose great enterprise required more access to Chinese immigrants, and freer passage to and from China. This was hindered by treaty and statute, so the Chinese Companies sued, using Wong Kim Ark as plaintiff.

Original Intent of Congress

When the 14th Amendment was proposed and the ‘citizenship clause’ debated, one senator’s comment illustrates the confusion, even then, over what was the legal foundation for citizenship at birth:

The ancient and indisputable citizenship rule of the British common law was the jus soli, under which a person’s nationality is determined by the place of his birth…. It is clear, of course, that the American colonies and the nation they ultimately established had accepted the precepts of the English common law, as part of the heritage from the mother country. Cong. Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Sess. 1262 (1866) (Congressman Broomall)

However, Congressman Broomall was wrong. How? First, as discussed above, even British law from 1351 to 1772 recognized the rightful inheritance of ‘leigance’ from the father, regardless of place of birth. Secondly, the American states barred reliance on English ‘common law’ as precedent unless specifically codified. And, thirdly; the U.S. Constitution enumerated (Art. I, Sec. 8 Cl. 4) congress plenary power over Uniform Naturalization, not to be revised or misinterpreted by common law or the judiciary.

There were competing opinions then, as now, but in the end the Senate approved the ‘citizenship clause’ determining that the citizenship clause of the 1866 Civil Rights Act defined it correctly:

In the first section of the proposition of the committee, the word “citizen” is used. That is a term about which there has been a good deal of uncertainty in our Government. The courts have stumbled on the subject, and even here, at this session, that question has been up and it is still regarded by some as doubtful. I regard it as settled by the civil rights bill, and, indeed, in my judgment, it was settled before. . . The Senator from Maine suggests to me, in an undertone, that persons may be born in the United States and yet not be citizens of the United States. Cong Globe 39th Congress (1866) 2768, 2769 Pres. pro tem Senator Wade (OH)

Here is case law, Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884); cited by Wong Kim Ark (1898) but for some reason not followed as precedent:

The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306. This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, [emphasis added]  or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. (p. 111) It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992. (p. 103)

I emphasized ‘proceedings’ because Justice Horace Gray used this word as a logical fulcrum point to move the law in a different direction. However, ‘proceedings’ was perhaps a poor choice of words because while naturalization law proceedings definitely applied to adults changing nationality of their own free will, the new nationality of the parent could have the effect of naturalizing their children and wives. The children did not participate in any ‘proceedings,’ but by natural law and statute followed the allegiance of the father. (The Wong Kim Ark court actually created a conflict of law, dual nationality; a conundrum that continues to complicate Nationality law.)

In 1940, a child born to a U.S. citizen mother abroad to a foreign father could acquire U.S. citizenship, but only if the mother returned to the U.S. and the child completed 5-years continuous residency. However, in 1952 the residency requirement was repealed and the child acquired a ‘post nati’ citizenship at birth. Statutory ‘citizenship at birth’ was discretionary, but no Act of Congress or case law was required if the child was born to a U.S. citizen father, a natural born citizen.

Many fail to make this distinction, conflating for convenience ‘natural born’ and ‘at birth.’ They are different, however; one by Natural Law and the other by statute. This distinction exists and yet the courts and congress refuse to address it.

The point is that the statutes required legal naturalization and residency. Until the Wong Kim Ark case, U.S. naturalization law never conferred citizenship automatically to aliens, be they domiciled legally or illegally.

The Reconstruction Acts of 1866 introduced ‘born in the United States’ in the manner of the ‘jus soli’ for only one reason; because freed slaves as property had no citizenship or nationality to confer to their children. Thus, the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act specified ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ which is what ‘under jurisdiction thereof’ meant as well in the 14th Amendment.

Here is a law school professor who got it right, very clearly stated, and properly citing the Slaughter-House cases and Elk vs Wilkins, John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law:

Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else. (See in the quote from Sen. Wade where he admits the Civil Rights Act’s ‘without allegiance to any foreign power’ settled the matter of which children born on U.S. soil were not granted citizenship.) New York Times UPDATED December 22, 2015  https://tinyurl.com/ydczevzt
See also http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-eastman-04-hamdi/

‘Jurisdiction’ is another word abused by the courts. The intent of the lawmakers choosing it was as the converse of ‘not subject to any foreign power.’ Diplomats have almost complete immunity to U.S. law as they are under total jurisdiction of their home country. Native Americans, ‘not taxed,’ had similar sovereignty protections. Travelers and those establishing ‘domicile’ have varying degrees of jurisdiction from both their home country and the United States. They are subject to U.S. criminal code and some tax laws, but they cannot be drafted into military service except by their home country. There is a process required for long term residency and naturalization, and as for any children born in the United States, regardless of any conflicting interpretation of the citizenship clause, the nationality of the parent is still conferred to the child.

Immigrants? Or, Invaders!

A category rarely mentioned, immune to nationality laws, are foreign military forces. My point being, that aliens who enter illegally in order to seek employment, social services, commit crimes, and abuse the misinterpretation of the citizenship clause are no better than invading foreign forces and should be repelled, and not given quarter nor benefits of ‘domicile.’

And ‘invasion’ is not a hyperbole! The illegal immigrant movement is organized both North and South of the border, even helped along by the Mexican government. After all, they are not only infiltrating the United States culturally and politically, but hundreds of billions of dollars come back into their economy every year, and that is not accounting for drug cartels.

A copy of this article should be sent to every congressman, and the president.

Leonard A. Daneman