Posts Tagged ‘birth certificate’

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)

 

Debunking Birth Certificate Forgery Claims? Here’s How to Make Your Own Forgery!

May 10, 2011

. . . or, Garbage In — Garbage Out

Update July 20, 2011 — Lucas Smith defends his Mombasa Obama birth certificate, mailed now to the 112th Congress as well as all members of the 111th Congress. http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/20/metric-system-not-officially-used-in-kenya-until-1967/ Because Post & E-Mail is now a subscription-only site, here is a view of the Lucas document.

THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF FORGERY IS BASED ON TWO ELEMENTS: 1) Debunkers can’t explain the several 90 degree rotations of imbedded artwork, impossible with Optimization, and; 2) There is no official state seal. All certified copies include a state seal. Perhaps it is missing as Hawaii would not allow misuse of their seal, a criminal offense.

In addition, isn’t it strange that there are two versions distributed? One is with security paper, and the other without . . . not possible if a certified copy printed directly on security paper!

The Whitehouse.gov is NOT OCR.

If it was, the typewriter text would be searchable. See this very EXCELLENT YouTube on the subject . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW_PWzhgvDs&annotation_id=annotation_262120&feature=iv

Forensic Analysis:  Forensics is working backwards and proving evidence is, well, evidentiary. The White House published two birth certificate files, a PDF and a JPEG. The JPEG was plain and without security paper. However, a true certified copy would be scanned and printed directly on security paper, sometimes reduced in order to accomodate legals and state seals.

The very fact of two digital images suggests the document was forged. Following is a way to simulate a forged document/form printed on security paper.

HOW THE WHITEHOUSE BIRTH CERTIFICATE WAS PRODUCED

Here is a shot of my Photoshop screen illustrating steps #3, #4, and #5.  To emphasize my point, putting the original Birth Certificate on a scanner/copier loaded with security paper would make a print of the form on the security pattern . . . all this wouldn’t be necessary.

  1. A Photoshop scan was made of a birth certificate in a binder in ‘document’ mode.
  2. The scan was switched from a binary bitmap to ‘grayscale’ or ‘RGB.’
  3. Using the ‘magic wand’ tool, the white paper background was ‘selected’ and deleted, revealing the transparent background layer.
  4. Only the ‘black’ text and lines remained. ‘Select All’ and copy, and then open a scan of security paper in Adobe Illustrator.
  5. ‘Paste’ the ‘copy’ of text and form lines onto the scan paper. Some letters may have been damaged or lost in the ‘magic wand’ selection process, so replace them using ‘copy’ and ‘paste.’ This is how you can get mixed ‘binary’ and ‘grayscale’ on the same image.
  6. Use scanner in grayscale or RGB mode to copy a real birth certificate and use the ‘select’ tool to copy essential dates stamps and seals. ‘Paste’ these onto fake birth certificate.
  7. Note: I used the ‘magic wand’ to make the Hi-Res Obama certificate open to paste over the security paper. Do this and add art elements from other birth certificates in Illustrator, and you will get what you see below.

Here is the image saved showing the official Obama birth certificate just all torn apart in Illustrator. Note . . . This is the image Jerome Corsi uses repeatedly in his updates on WorldNetDaily . . .

A Bit of Humor

I forwarded to Jerome Corsi the analysis of Vogt, owner of The Depository, an expert in document scanning and printing. His article today on WorldNetDaily reported the filing of a criminal complaint with the FBI. Note the juxtaposition of the Adobe ad . . . well, it made me laugh anyway.

I learned touch-typing on Underwood and Royal standards at age thirteen . . . and have  kept an Underwood in my big steel ‘Police Desk’ for occasional use. The springs  are fully adjusted for brisk operation, and the 40+ year old machine is kept  clean, covered and lubricated. I am trained in WORD on the Expert level, and in  Photoshop by a genius photographer and IT guy.

Kerning will not be found in isolated areas. Once you adjust ‘spacing’ in WORD, or use TypeFonts that  automatically space for a pleasing, natural effect, it will be evident throughout the document.

Instructions:

To best view the JPEG, enlarge it to 400%.

Use your ‘rectangular marquee’ tool to count/isolate pixels between the letters ‘ny’ in Kenya, and ‘ty’ in the  111ty and ty examples. I touch-typed ‘Kenya’ with strong, quick strokes on the ‘ny’ in order to create a 2 to 3 pixel overlap, or kerning, of the ‘n’ foot and the ‘y’ serif. That is a fully typed word. The ‘111ty’ was typed in normal, even rhythm, and your marquee tool will isolate 2-3 pixels  between the t and y. That is normal platen movement.

The final ‘ty’ was typed with index fingers of the left and right hand in a quick succession, straining the spring tension indexing of  the platen . . . recreating the expert’s ‘kerning’ in a mechanical typewriter . . . something he said was impossible. Using ‘hunt & peck’ fingers instead of touch-typing created an exaggerated ‘kerning’ effect of 4 pixels overlapping.

Caveate:  If one abuses a sharpening filter, or black and gray values, the pixels can be extended out from the original image and invalidate the analysis. (This may explain the ‘halo’ on the security paper printed birth certificate.) For this reason, I ignored the faintest pixels on the edge, so they didn’t contribute to kerning overlap.

There is no way to determine how poorly the Adobe PDF of the Web published birth certificate was filtered or compressed, but you can clearly see the delicate serif on my ‘8s’ which are almost obliterated on the PDF. Note also that the lower case ‘l’ and numeral ‘1’ are identical . . . another characteristic of the Underwood Standard, which had no ‘1’ key at all; you had to use lower case ‘l.’

I put a lot more faith in my presentation than the work of Ivan Zatkovich or Karl Denniger, as it is from original and uncompressed or filtered sources.

It would be nice and easy if we could simply prove forgery and settle Obama’s unconstitutional presidency, but it is embarrassing to be ‘proven’ fooled after being forced to base your analysis on such a poor ‘original’ that no court in the world would accept it as evidence. Orly Taitz is fighting on with her Social Security number fraud case . . . but the Citizen at Birth issue is the key, and the most difficult to overcome. Native-birth citizenship is so imbedded in the American psyche that it has created a cultural Collective Dissonance . . . in other words, you are fighting deeply seated ‘beliefs,’ armed only with reasoning and history. David versus Goliath is an apt analogy.

If WND took a POLL, I predict 13% will say the son of an illegal alien is eligible to the presidency, as long as he is born on U.S. soil!

That is the real issue, and related to illegal immigration and immigration reform, so we have the Hispanic political action groups to fight as well.

Do a 'right click' and 'save image as' and open in your Photoshop or Photoshop Elements imaging program

Actual keystrokes on a Standard Underwood, creating “impossible” kerning

Birth Certificate Not Determinative of Natural Born Citizenship

April 17, 2011

UP-DATE 4-27-2011

Today, the White House released a long form Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama. However, since my first blog of Feb-2009, and many blogs since, including this one from ten days ago, I warned ‘birthers’ the Birth Certificate was not the issue; the nationality of Obama’s father was.

Our first presidents were Art II eligible under the ‘citizens at the time of adoption’ clause.

Under the ’35-years old’ requirement, the first candidates that had to be ‘natural born citizens’ (NBC) were Art II eligible starting around 1811, or 1822, depending on if  ‘at the time of adoption of this constitution,’ or 1776’s Declaration of Independence created the first U.S. citizens.

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS CLAIMING HE IS ART II ELIGIBLE

1) According to the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, and the 2008 SR511, having U.S. citizen parents was the key factor of NBC, not native-birth. (http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html)

2) If native-birth, or jus solis, was the determinative factor of NBC, then any son of a visiting British loyalist born on U.S. soil would be eligible to the presidency; in light of the history of our Revolutionary War, that is just an impossible scenario.

3) In the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, there is no description of ‘native-birth’ as a determination of citizenship, natural born or otherwise. Minor children of aliens became citizens upon naturalization of the father.

4) From the first of our naturalization laws to today, the citizenship of a child is determined first by the nationality of the father, i.e., which sovereignty has jurisdiction over the father and his children. Therefore, the 14th Amendment as misinterpreted by Wong Kim Ark does not create an NBC, let alone a citizen, if the parents are aliens. Ark is in conflict with existing law.

The question that Minor did not answer was answered by Wong Kim Ark, wherein the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument was totally consistent with the then-existing Congressional naturalization acts. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to domiciled alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents, in no way disturbed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born Citizen,” for it was asked to decide only if Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also allowed Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” because it found that his parents, while not U.S. citizens, were, among other things, domiciliaries, residents of the United States, and not working in some foreign diplomatic capacity and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So Wong decided only the “citizen” part of Wong’s status. It never decided whether he also had the “natural born” part. The Court cautioned in its opinion in the beginning and at its end that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and also informed us under what limited conditions, born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not employed in some foreign diplomatic capacity, it ruled that he was so.  So Wong cited and quoted Minor and its definition that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Wong then decided that a child born in the country to alien parents who were domiciled in the U.S. was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment. It is critical that the Court did not say that Wong was completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but only that he was subject to that jurisdiction. Note the Court did not rule that he was an Article II “natural born Citizen” which the Court told us was defined by Minor.  Rather, the Court told us that he was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo citing Wong Kim Ark

5) From 1787 to the 1920’s, or about 135-years, the maiden citizenship of the mother did not determine the citizenship of the child, only that of the father. Even in modern naturalization law, where the maiden citizenship of the mother is preserved even if married to an alien father, three things are necessary to activate U.S. citizenship at birth from the mother: One; Abandonment of the Alien Father, or Two; Birth out of Wedlock and Abandonment, and Three; Specific U.S. residency requirements by both mother and child are met.

Therefore, Obama supporters claim that Dunham’s U.S. citizenship made Obama an NBC is wrong as well.

6) Dual Nationality: Dual nationality, or two citizenships at birth, is considered UNLAWFUL per se, and a violation of Natural Law unless formally registered under existing laws. Liberals admit dual nationality is a ‘problem,’ but refuse to enforce laws prohibiting it.

Obama admits he was born with British citizenship per the 1948 British Nationality Act. U.S. law ‘dealienaged’ Obama according to the description of naturalization laws in paragraph 5. Therefore, Obama is not an NBC, but a citizen by naturalization law, i.e., naturalized.

7) In fact, if Obama had not met U.S. naturalization law residency requirements from ages 14 through 23, he would NOT be a U.S.citizen today. (See 1952 INA § 301)

8) If the Obamatons are correct, that judicially legislated case law (in violation of Art I, Sec 8) determines who is a ‘native-born’ citizen, i.e., to many, the simple requirement to be a natural born citizen, then any ‘anchor baby’ of illegal aliens is Art II eligible.

This is as ridiculous as Revolutionary War veterans allowing the son of a British subject Art II eligibility.

Emmerich de Vattel specified that a society “cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights,” . . . NOT children of aliens! §212, ‘Law of Nations’

CONCLUSION:  Birth Certificate or No Birth Certificate, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT Art. II eligible to be president.

See ‘A Timeline of Obama’s Nationality,’ at https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-timeline-of-barack-hussein-obamas-nationality-and-citizenships/

Birther Bumper Sticker

September 6, 2010

Update July 20, 2011 — Lucas Smith defends his Mombasa Obama certificate, mailed now to all members of the 111th and 112th Congresses. http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/20/metric-system-not-officially-used-in-kenya-until-1967/

Since before the 2008 election I have been involved in legal research on the Barack Hussein Obama Article II eligibility issue.

I’ve advised attorney Phil Berg and contributed to motions filed by Dr. Orly Taitz.

Prior to both the election and the January 9, 2009 Certification of Electoral Votes, I faxed and e-mailed seventy-seven Republican congressmen, including John McCain, advising them that ‘native-born’ was not synonymous with Article II’s ‘natural born citizen.’

The Internet publication of Obama’s Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth puzzled me, and I believe I was the first to discover the Hawaiian statutes, Haw. Stat. Rev. § 338-17.8 and 338-5 that permitted a Kenyan-born Obama, Jr. to have his birth registered in Hawaii.

Below is an image of unknown authenticity or attribution of a 17.8 Out-of-State registration, signed by Stanley Ann Dunham’s mother. Note the place of birth as an unknown hospital in Kenya.

This raises concerns about the Internet C.O.L.B., because it too should mention place of birth as Kenya.

Finally, see the Lucas Smith Mombasa Birth Certificate.

HRS 17.8 Out-of-State Registration signed by Madalyn Dunham

The Lucas Smith Mombasa Birth Certificate

The KOS C.O.L.B. naming Honolulu as Place of Birth